xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NIC 27711
EPA-600/7-79-066
February 1979
Chemically Active
Fluid-Bed Process for
Sulphur Removal During
Gasification of Heavy
Fuel Oil-
Fourth Phase
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the participating Federal Agencies, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the Government, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-79-066
February 1979
Chemically Active Fluid-Bed
Process for Sulphur Removal
During Gasification of Heavy
Fuel Oil-
Fourth Phase
by
A.W. Ramsden and Z. Kowszun
Esso Research Centre
Abingdon, Oxfordshire 0X136AE
England
Contract No. 68-02-1479
Program Element No. 1AB013
ROAP21ADD-BE
EPA Project Officer: Samuel L. Rakes
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
FOREWORD
The Chemically Active Fluidised Bed (CAFB) is a process
for gasification and desulphurisation of high sulphur
residual fuel oils and coals to produce a low BTU, low
sulphur gas for utilisation in conventional combustion
equipment. The process presents an alternative means for
utilising high sulphur fuels in an environmentally acceptable
fashion to meet existing limits for emission of sulphur
oxides.
This report presents results of studies in a continuous
pilot plant gasifier - regenerator system on the gasification
of heavy fuel oil and a heavy vacuum residuum. Results are
presented on desulphurisation performance and the effects of
process variables on sulphur retention. Preliminary studies
on the gasification of coal in a batch reactor and also
discussed.
- 11 -
-------
SUMMARY
Phase four of the studies on the CAFB process for
gasifying and desulphurising liquid and other potential
fuels - including coal - was carried out between June 1975
and December 1976. Objectives originally established for
phase four were changed during this period in recognition of
the improved means of data handling and evaluation estab-
lished during phase three (Ref. 3). Essentially, the
statistical techniques established enabled each valid hourly
data set to be included, thereby avoiding the need to reject
data taken under non-lined out operations. The number of
data points available for analysis increased considerably as
a consequence. Thus, the work planned for alternative fuel
feedstocks, particularly coal, could be advanced whilst
still meeting the objectives of supporting the design and
construction of a large scale demonstration using heavy fuel
oil.
Bearing in mind the change in emphasis of the programme
mentioned above, the specific objectives of phase four were
to evaluate one new limestone and one new fuel, (coal), in
the CAFB batch reactor. Secondly, to extend understanding
of the CAFB process through analysis of data derived from
operation of the continuous CAFB gasifier on conventional
fuel, and also on a heavy residuum fuel and coal, and to
develop empirical relationships to describe the sulphur
removal efficiency and to support processing modelling
studies. A further major objective was to support the
planned field demonstration programme at San Benito, Texas
through evaluation of design, materials, and procedures
proposed for this project. Provision was allowed for
participation in consultations and discussions with other
parties associated with this programme. Finally, ongoing
tests were required to establish the fate of trace elements
present in the fuel feedstocks used in the CAFB process.
Batch unit studies concluded that a Texas limestone
appears to be suitable for the field demonstration unit, and
that the gasification and desulphurisation of coal is
feasible.
On the continuous CAFB pilot plant, run 10 was the
initial test conducted with redesigned and rebuilt equipment
incorporating a number of new features, including specific
items to be tested in support of the field demonstration.
Essentially, cylindrical gasifier and regenerator
reactors were cast in a composite refractory shell, providing
- iii -
-------
improved insulation, within a steel casing. A two stage
gasifier air distributor was fitted with provisions to
protect fuel injectors. New high flow, low velocity cyclones
were fabricated and fitted external to the reactor vessels,
and new fines re-injection equipment was installed. Pro-
visions was made to evaluate a heavy vacuum residuum fuel,
and to establish the feasibility of pneumatic injection of
coal into the gasifier. For flue gas recycle, equipment was
installed to examine tuyere injection, and to identify
potential problems of a baghouse filter for flue gas clean
up. Numerous detailed changes were made to other sub-systems
associated with the pilot unit.
During Run 10, experience with the redesigned gasifier,
regenerator, gasifier distributor, product gas cyclones and
ducting was more than satisfactory, and the improved insu-
lation greatly reduced the unit skin temperature. However,
the cyclone drain/fines reinjection system, the limestone
feed equipment, the flue gas recycle bag house filter and to
a lesser extent, the bed transfer system proved troublesome,
and a prolonged shut down resulted early in the run to
enable improvements to be effected.
A number of specific experiments were carried out. The
injection of heavy fuel oil through a single injector into
the gasifier distributor pit was successfully demonstrated
without loss of desulphurisation performance, as was the
removal and insertion of fuel injectors without need for
plant shut down. The pit refractory walls provided excellent
protection for the fuel oil injectors. Heavy vacuum residuum
was similarly injected successfully. Pneumatic coal inject-
ion was demonstrated and gasification, desulphurisation, and
regeneration was not obviously impaired during this short
period of operation except when metering problems were
encountered with the simple equipment being used.
Flue gas recycle using tuyere injection directly into
the gasifier bed proved successful and reduces the degree of
recycle gas clean-up required. A baghouse filter system
for flue gas clean up was subject to blockage with damp
solids which were difficult to drain, and a warm-up stage
needs to be considered as part of the operating procedure
for such a facility.
Burn out of the product gas ducts from the boiler
burner end was successful, but it proved impossible to clear
the cyclone entries completely with a reversed gas flow.
Air bleeds at the product gas entry point into the ducts
leading from the gasifier were completely ineffective in
preventing deposit accumulations.
-------
Steam injection was confirmed to hinder the sulphur
retention performance of the lime bed in the gasifier, the
effect being more pronounced when richer operation of the
gasifier was established.
Run 10 was hampered towards the end by excessive boiler
water temperature, suggesting either restricted circulation
in the primary circuit, or poor performance from the heat
exchanger. These were not resolved at this time.
The regression analysis techniques developed during
phase three (Ref. 3) for predicting sulphur removal effici-
ency were extended to the data available from Run 10. The
similarity of the equation developed for Run 10 to those
previously obtained indicated that the unit configuration,
the location and number of fuel injectors, the two stage
gasifier distributor and the tuyere injection of flue gas
had no significant effect on the sulphur retention per-
formance. A new significant variable, viz bed age, was
found as a consequence of prolonged operations without fresh
limestone make-up. The equation was successfully applied to
TJ 102 Medium vacuum residuum (bitumen) suggesting that fuel
characteristics are also of second order importance.
A unified equation covering Runs 8, 9 and 10 was
developed as the best available performance predictor. This
differed slightly from that presented previously (Ref. 3) as
the results from each separate run were initially corrected
to the design conditions planned for the demonstration unit.
Application to available, selected data from Runs 6 and 7
gave much improved prediction compared to previously.
Retention of a range of trace elements by the lime bed
was shown to be a relatively short term effect. Continuous
stone make-up is required for optimum retention, though
make-up rates lower than 1 molar are adequate provided the
necessary bed level is maintained. Prolonged operation
without fresh stone addition leads to a deterioration in
trace element retention.
This study is generally difficult to carry out due to
the difficulties of measuring trace element levels, particu-
larly for the fuel and limestone feeds. Thus, some trace
element levels are too low for detection, and the precision
of measuring others is poor at +3 times the level detected.
Balances are thus difficult to carry out.
Vanadium, which is of major interest since its con-
centration on the limestone may justify recovery, was found
to reach a maximum of 0.6 wt$ on the gasifier bed.
- v -
-------
The investigation of emissions from the CAFB pilot
plant, including trace element levels on particulates was
carried out during Run 10 by GCA Corporation who were
contracted by the EPA to conduct a Level 1 environmental
assessment of the process. A separate report (Ref. 8) has
been issued which comprehensively covers all aspects of
fugitive emissions.
Future work planned will be directed towards further
tests on the gasification and desulphurisation of solid
fuels, viz coal and lignite. To support this, an efficient
and reliable supply and metering system will need to be
designed. Included in these studies will be further investi-
gations of proposed design features and operating techniques
for field demonstration plant support. Outside these
objectives, it will be necessary to make a number of
improvements in the current plant configuration to improve
performance and data precision. Specifically, the limestone
feed system will need improvement, analytical equipment will
need updating and the performance of the boiler heat dissi-
pation equipment will have to be resolved and corrected.
- vi -
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER NOTICE i
FOREWORD ii
SUMMARY ill
CONTENTS vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF TABLES ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi
1 . INTRODUCTION 1
2. CONCLUSIONS 10
3. RECOMMENDATIONS 16
4. DISCUSSION 18
CONTINUOUS UNIT STUDIES 18
PREPARATION OF EQUIPMENT FOR RUN 10 18
EXPERIENCE WITH NEW PILOT UNIT DURING RUN 10 21
INSPECTION OF PILOT UNIT POST RUN 10 23
ANALYSIS OF CONTINUOUS RUN 10 RESULTS 25
MATERIAL BALANCES 77
BATCH UNIT STUDIES 94
TESTS ON LIMESTONES 94
COAL GASIFICATION TESTS 100
REFERENCES 110
APPENDIXES
A DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF FOR NEW 111
CONTINUOUS PILOT UNIT
B BATCH TEST RESULTS 131
C OPERATIONAL LOG, EQUIPMENT INSPECTION, 141
RESULTS, RUN 10
D CAFB OPERATORS MANUAL, RUN 10 239
E FUELS AND LIMESTONE INSPECTIONS 319
F MODIFICATIONS TO CONTINUOUS UNIT IN 323
PREPARATION FOR COAL GASIFICATION TESTS
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA SHEET 329
- vii -
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER Page
1 Overall Programme of Work. 2
2 % Sulphur Removal Efficiency versus Gasifier 53
Bed Depth (cm).
3 % Sulphur Removal Efficiency versus Gasifier 54
Bed Temperature (°C).
4 % Sulphur Removal Efficiency versus Air/Fuel 55
Ratio (% Stoichiometric).
5 % Sulphur Removal Efficiency versus Added 56
Water (m3 vapour/hr).
6 % Sulphur Removal Efficiency versus Ca/S 57
Mole Ratio.
7 % Sulphur Removal Efficiency versus Cyclone 58
Drain Temperature (*C).
8 % Sulphur Removal Efficiency versus Hours 59
without Stone Addition.
9 % Sulphur Removal Efficiency (Residual 62
Error) versus Bed Carbon (wt %).
10 % Sulphur Removal Efficiency (Residual 63
Error) versus Bed Sulphur (wt %).
1 1 % Sulphur Removal Efficiency (Residual 64
Error) versus Bed Sulphate (wt %},
12 % Sulphur Removal Efficiency (Residual Error) 65
versus Bed Fines (wt % less than 600 u).
13 % Sulphur Removal Efficiency (Residual 66
Error) versus Gasifier Air Rate (m3/hr).
14 % Sulphur Removal Efficiency (Residual 67
Error) versus Fuel Rate (kg/hr).
15 Cooling Curve for Gasifier Bed after Shutdown. 78
16 Sulphur Removal Efficiency vs Time : Texas 99
Limestone.
17 Line Diagram of Batch Coal Gasifier. 102
- vin -
-------
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER Page
1 Equipment Reliability during Run 10. 24
2 Correlation Matrix for Run 10 Variables. 31
3 Comparison of Correlation Coefficients with 33
% Sulphur Removal Efficiency for Runs 8, 9
and 10.
4 Summary Statistics for Runs 8, 9 and 10. 34
5 Linear Regression Equations to Predict % 40
Sulphur Removal Efficiency, Runs 8, 9 and 10.
6 Standardised Operating Conditions (Foster 42
Wheeler Design Criteria).
7 Grouped data for polynomial fit analysis 43
(uncorrected) for Run 8.
8 Grouped data for polynomial fit analysis 45
(uncorrected) for Run 9.
9 Grouped data for polynomial fit analysis 47
(uncorrected) for Run 10.
10 Corrections to % Sulphur Removal Efficiency 50
Values. Runs 8, 9 and 10.
11 Polynomial Equations for Runs 8, 9 and 10. 51
12 Overall Equation applied to Individual Runs. 61
13 Application of Average Regression Equation 69
to TJ 102 Medium Vacuum Bottoms (Bitumen).
14 Prediction of Averaged % Sulphur Removal 71
Efficiency for Runs 6 and 7 using the Overall
Runs 8, 9 and 10 Regression Equation.
15 Effect of Fuel Injector Position on Sulphur 73
Removal Efficiency.
16 Effect of Steam Injection on Sulphur Removal 75
Efficiency.
- ix -
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
NUMBER Page
17 Stone Balance for Period D.H. 13-2330-16.1800. 80
18 Sulphur Balance for period D.H. 13.2330-16. 81
1800.
19 Lime Attrition Rate. 83
20 Elemental Analysis of Fuel Oil and Limestone 85
samples.
21 Trace Element Balances. 88
22 Trace Element Enrichment Factors. 90
23 Inspection of Texas Limestone ex Whites Mines. 96
24 Fines Losses for Texas Limestone. 97
25 Texas Limestone Gasification Test Conditions 98
: Batch Tests.
26 Typical Composition of Illinois No.6 and Texas 104
Lignite.
27 Illinois No.6 Particle Size Distribution. 105
28 Product Gas Analysis : Illinois No.6. 107
29 Summary of Materials Balances : Illinois No.6. 109
- x -
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The support of Esso Petroleum Company Ltd. is acknow-
ledged for the provision of a 2930 kW (10 million BTU/hr)
Chemically Active Fluid Bed Gasifier facility at the Esso
Research Centre, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, England, and for
various additions and modifications to this facility which
made possible the generation of continuous gasification data
for this project.
The authors also thank Dr. G.L. Johnes, Dr. G. Moss,
Dr. D. Lyon, Dr. L. Malkin, Mr. M. Alphandary, Mr. A.
Brimble, Mr. E. Blissett, Mr. R. Priestnall, Mr. D. Stormes,
Mr. A. Jennings, Mr. D. Stone, Mr. H. Towers and Mr. F. Rolf
for their invaluable contributions, suggestions and assist-
ance in operating equipment and recording experimental data
on which this report is based. Many other Esso Petroleum
Company personel are also gratefully acknowledged for
assistance in designing, constructing and maintaining equip-
ment, in operation of the pilot plant, and in chemical
analysis of test samples.
Finally, the authors acknowledge the valuable dis-
cussions and exchange of ideas with the EPA Project Officer,
Mr. S.L. Rakes.
- xi -
-------
INTRODUCTION
General
The Chemically Active Fluid Bed (CAFB) process is a
means of reducing sulphur oxide pollution while using heavy
fuel oil for production of power. The process uses a
fluidised bed of lime particles to convert the oil into a
hot, low sulphur gas ready for combustion in an adjacent
boiler. Sulphur from the fuel is absorbed by the lime which
can be regenerated for re-use. During lime regeneration the
sulphur is liberated as a concentrated stream of S02 which
may be converted to acid or elemental sulphur.
Exploratory work on the CAFB process began at the Esso
Research Centre, Abingdon (ERCA) in 1966. In 1969 a six
phase programme of work was proposed to take the CAFB
process from the laboratory stage through to a demonstration
of the process on a 50 to 100 megawatt (electrical) power
generation boiler located in the United States. A summary
of this six phase programme is shown in Fig. 1. Phase One
studies at Esso Research Centre were funded under Contract
CPA 70-46 in June 1970, and consisted of batch reactor fuel
and limestone screening studies, a variable study with U.S.
limestone BCR 1691, and initial operation of a pilot plant
incorporating continuous gasification and regeneration. The
results of these studies were described in the final report
(Ref. 1) for that contract, dated June 1972.
Work on the second phase of studies was carried out in
the period July 1, 1972 through May 1974, and the final
report was issued in November 1974 (Ref. 2).
Work on phase three studies carried out under contract
68-02-1359 between November 1973 and June 1975 was covered
in report No. EPA-600/2-76-248 issued in September 1976
(Ref. 3).
This report covers work on phase four studies under
contract number 68-02-1479 between July 1975 and December
1976.
Gasifier Chemistry
When heavy fuel oil is injected into a bed of fluidised
lime under reducing conditions at about 900 °C,it vaporises,
cracks, and forms a series of compounds ranging from H2 and
CH4 through heavy hydrocarbons to coke. The sulphur con-
tained in the oil forms compounds such as H2S, COS and CS2
-------
OVERALL pHQCRAMME Of WORK TO ACHIEVE CONVCRSiOH OF A SO TO lOO MW POWfO tENtRATIQM BOILER TO C A F B OPERATION
LABORATORY
STUDIES
CNOINEEftlMi
DESIGN
BOILER
COMVEKSION
CONSTRUCTION
Ptiit OF
»CTIVIT»
SCLECT
LtKitlOH
1
COMMIIM£NT ON BOlUft
AVAILABll-lTV fOH COWVEflSlON
ASSlS
M ftnronuu
/
PCRVISE CHCCIION
NO COUUISSION.ua
t
ANCC IN
NCC 1E&TS
k
1
1
1
1
I
•
PCRFORMANCC TCSTS
ANO EVALUATION
\
i
i
+
BOIL£f) AVAILABLE FOA CONVERSION
COMUISSIONINt AMD KftfORMANCE TESTS ~
!
CONVERSION
0 COMMISSION
7
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
COMMISSIONING AND
TESTS
ROUTINE
OPERATION
-------
with H2S predominating. The sulphur compounds react with
CaO to form CaS and water or carbon oxides.
For example:-
CaO + H2S > CaS + H2
The equilibrium for this reaction is far to the right.
With a fuel containing 4$ sulphur the equilibrium permits a
desulphurising efficiency greater than 90$ up to 1100 *C.
Other factors however limit gasification temperature to the
range of about 850 to 950*C where the equilibrium sulphur
removal would be about 99$ (see Ref. 1).
In the shallow fluidised bed of the gasifier there is a
rapid circulation of lime between top and bottom. Indications
are that coke is laid down on the lime in the upper portion
of the fluid bed by oil cracking and coking reactions and
that this coke burns off in the lower portion where oxygen
is supplied by the air distributor.
Gasification conditions of temperature and air-fuel
ratio must be chosen to maintain a balance between the rate
of coke and carbon deposition and the rate of carbon burnoff.
Broadly, this balance is met at gasification temperatures in
the range of 850 to 950°C and air-fuel ratios around 20%
of stoichiometric. Lower air-fuel ratios are operable at
the upper end of the temperature range, and higher air-fuel
ratios are needed as temperature is reduced.
Much of the oxygen entering the gasifier is consumed in
oxidising coke to CO and C02 near the distributor. Of
course, some enters other regions of the bed where it reacts
with H2 and hydrocarbons to form water and more carbon
oxides. The final product from the gasifier is a hot
combustible gas containing H2, hydrocarbons, CO, C02 H20,
and N2- Most of the energy released by partial combustion
of the fuel is retained by this gas as sensible heat.
Only a portion of the CaO in the lime is reacted on each
pass of solids through the gasifier. Good sulphur absorption
reactivity has been obtained with up to 20$ of calcium
reacted in single cycle batch reactor tests, but in the
continuous unit, the average extent of calcium conversion to
sulphide is held to less than 10$.
When a single batch of lime is cycled between gasifi-
cation and regeneration conditions it gradually loses
activity for sulphur absorption. The activity of the bea
can be maintained if some of the lime is purged each cycle
and replaced by fresh material. Reactivity of the bed is
- 3 -
-------
therefore a function of the lime replacement rate. The
replacement lime is usually added to the gasifier as lime-
stone which calcines in situ.
Vanadium from the fuel oil deposits on the lime during
gasification. Previous experimental evidence was that
practically all of the fuel vanadium can remain fixed with
the lime. This report contains data which indicates the
limits within which retention can take place.
Regenerator Chemistry
Calcium sulphide is regenerated to calcium oxide by
air oxidation.
CaS + 3/2 02 --------- > CaO + S02
H = -485- 1 kJ/mol
A competing reaction also consumes oxygen and forms
calcium sulphate.
CaS + 202 ----------- > CaSOij
H = -921.3 kJ/mol
Both reactions are stongly exothermic. A third reaction
between the solid species is also possible.
CaS + 3CaSOi| -------- > 4CaO + 4S02
H = 926.8 kJ/mol
This reaction is strongly endothermic.
The equilibrium constants, (Ref. 1), for these reactions
determine the maximum partial pressure of S02 which can
exist in equilibrium with mixtures of CaS, CaO and CaSOij at
any given temperature. These equilibria also determine a
relationship between regenerator temperature and the maximum
theoretical selectivity of oxidation of CaS to CaO.
At low oxidation temperature, the equilibrium S02
partial pressure is too low to permit all the oxygen supplied
to leave in the form of S02. The excess oxygen then goes to
form CaSOij. Experimental oxidation selectivities are lower
than the theoretical maximum, probably because of contacting
and kinetic factors.
Since each sulphided lime particle passes through a
range of temperatures and oxygen concentrations during its
transit through the regenerator, it is exposed, on average,
to less favourable selectivity conditions than those at the
top of the bed.
- 4 -
-------
Calcium sulphide oxidation selectivities to CaO of 70 to
80% and regenerator SC>2 concentrations of 8 to 10% have been
achieved in pilot plant operations at regenerator temperatures
in the range of 1040 to 1070°C.
During the conversion of CaS to CaO and CaSOij there is
evidence for the existence of a transient liquid state
(Ref. 4). If air is passed through a hot static bed con-
taining CaS, some of the particles will agglomerate into
lumps during the regeneration reaction. Agglomeration does
not occur if the bed is vigorously fluidised.
Background Influences on Experimental Studies
Details of the results of previous studies are described
fully in previous reports (Refs. 1, 2 and 3), but in summary
this work had confirmed that good desulphurisation results
could be obtained and that the process was stable and
controllable. Sufficient information was generated by these
studies to enable EPA to request Westinghouse Research
Laboratories (WRL), under contract to EPA, to carry out a
preliminary technical and cost review and to recommend on
future development. A report by WRL (Ref. 5) confirmed that
the CAFB process was attractive when compared with the main
alternatives for clean power generation viz. flue gas
desulphurisation or combustion of heavy fuel oil desulphur-
ised at a refinery.
Acting on behalf of EPA, WRL presented the CAFB process
to a number of utilities, with the objective of interesting
one of them in participating under EPA support in conversion
to CAFB operation of a power generation boiler of about 50
MWe capacity. Early in 1973 New England Electric System
(NEES) of Westborough, Mass, agreed in principle to cooperate
in such a demonstration to be based on a 50 MWe boiler at
Providence, Rhode Island. EPA, NEES and WRL jointly selected
Stone and Webster Engineering Corportion (SWEC) as the
Architect Engineer for the conversion. Details of the SWEC
design and costing have been reported by WRL (Ref. 5), but
events were overtaken by the decision of the Federal Energy
Authority to schedule NEES boilers for operation on coal
only. In view of this, NEES withdrew from the demonstration
programme in April 1975.
Fortunately for the progressive continuation of the
CAFB development programme, Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation
(FWEC) had been pursuing an independent programme as a
worldwide licensee of patents held on the CAFB process by
Exxon Research and Engineering Company (EREC) and drew this
to the attention of EPA in April 1975. Agreement was
- 5 -
-------
readily reached between EPA and FWEC to fund engineering
studies, and FWEC in turn signed an agreement with Central
Power and Light (CP & L) of Corpus Christi, Texas, to
convert a 20 MWe boiler in the CP & L plant at San Benito,
Texas. A CAFB unit is currently under construction to
demonstrate performance at this location.
As set out in Fig. 1, Phase four was planned as a
period of specific studies to support detailed design and
evaluation of the CAFB process. However, Foster Wheeler
Energy Corporation moved rapidly during the period covered
by this report and a definitive design and report had been
issued for the San Benito demonstration project by April
1976. The design was based essentially on work previously
reported (Refs. 1, 2 and 3), and on partial analysis of the
data derived during run 10 (Task 3). Consequently, the
direction of the work under contract 68-02-1479 was re-
directed to prepare the Abingdon CAFB pilot plant for
development tests on coal gasification. This work was
substituted for that originally planned for further tests on
heavy fuel oil for Run 11, (Task 3). Before the elapse of
contract 68-02-1479, a further contract with EPA was started
in May 1976 to provide for direct support for the San Benito
demonstration programme, and this contract 68-02-2159 is
still in progress, due for completion in May 1979.
Work Objectives
The initial list of tasks adopted for this contract
is set out below:
Task 1 To evaluate three new limestones and a new fuel
for CAFB operations in batch tests.
Task 2 To consolidate understanding of the process by
analysing data derived from previous tests, and
based on design parameters, using mathematical
model(s), predict the performance of the CAFB
unit.
Task 3 Test proposed design features for the CAFB demon-
stration plant.
Modify the Esso pilot gasifier to incorporate
proposed design features to be tested and if
necessary, to alleviate problems encountered
during phase three operation. Modificatons
relating to proposed design features could include
- 6 -
-------
installation of a different distributor, a differ-
ent product gas burner, and different equipment
for cold start-up.
Test proposed design features by examining their
effect on start-up, sulphur removal efficiency,
and turn down during operation of the gasifier to
provide 270 hours of steady state gasification,
and 10 data points at lined out conditions.
Cool down unit and inspect.
Task 4 To evaluate one or more of the following:
1. Procedure change and/or modification indicated
by results of Task 3.
2. An additional limestone.
3. A heavier fuel, e.g. a vacuum pipestill
residuum.
4. Other design features proposed for a demon-
stration plant.
5. Test programme for a demonstration plant.
6. Control and monitoring instrumentation for
the demonstration plant.
Modify Esso pilot gasifier as necessary for
evaluation. Operate gasifier to provide 270 hours
of steady state gasification, and a maximum of 10
data points at lined out conditions.
Task 5 Provide advice, consultation, and technical
expertise to support start-up, shakedown, commiss-
ioning and operation of a demonstration unit.
Consult with other EPA contractors involved in
design and evaluation of the demonstration plant.
Task 6 Determine effect of the CAFB process on potentially
harmful elements other than S02 and NOX.
Analyses of fuel oil, limestone, flue gas, and
solids withdrawn from the Esso gasifier, boiler,
and stack within the limits of analytical procedures
- 7 -
-------
currently available for those elements listed
below.
Mercury
Beryllium
Cadmium
Antimony
Molybdenum
Nickel
Vanadium
Tellurium
Arsenic
Selenium
Chromium
Manganese
Cobalt
Boron
Lead
Examine 6 sets of samples for other potential
pollutants such as sulphates and free acids which
are potentially emitted by the CAFB process in
flue gases or other waste gas streams.
These tasks were modified during the execution of
the contract as follows:
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Task
Only one limestone was provided for evaluation.
Since the limestone gave reasonably good perform-
ance and was provided from a source within an
acceptable distance of the test site in Texas, no
further limestones were evaluated, as these would
have to be transported a considerable distance to
the test site.
The studies on a new fuel for CAFB operations were
directed solely towards gasification of a solid
fuel.
No change.
Because of the success of the statistical data
analysis techniques developed under the previous
contract (Ref. 3), it was found to be possible to
utilise data from both steady and transient
gasification conditions. Consequently, the number
of data points generated was increased from the 10
proposed under this task originally to 192 in
actual fact. This made it possible to bring
forward into Task 3 most of the studies proposed
under Task 4, including gasification of a heavier
liquid fuel, and studies on the feasibility of
gasifying a solid fuel.
Because of the increased amount of data generated
under Task 3, and the need to advance the timing
of continuous pilot plant operations on solid
fuels, this task was redirected into modifying the
CAFB pilot plant to be ready for extended oper-
ations on solid fuels.
- 8 -
-------
The work carried out on this modified unit formed
part of the initial work under contract 68-02-2159,
and has already been reported as a topical report
under that contract (Ref. 7).
Task 5 Due to change in the demonstration programme
timing, support for startup, shakedown and commiss-
ioning of a demonstration unit was not carried
out.
Task 6 Analysis for trace elements in fuel oil, limestone
and solids withdrawn from the gasifier, boiler and
stack were carried out.
However, this task was supplemented by the EPA who
engaged GCA Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts to
carry out a Level 1 environmental impact study on
all the emissions from the CAFB pilot plant. This
work has been reported (Ref. 8).
Reporting and Discussion of Results
The discussion is set out in Section 4 by task.
Wherever necessary for additional clarity, reference is made
to significant events external to this contract which are
summarised above, and which influenced the direction or
emphasis of the experimental programme.
_ 9 _
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Task 1
The Texas limestone tested in the CAFB batch gasifier
showed satisfactory performance with regard to grindability,
low attrition losses, good sulphur retention and ease of
regeneration. It is considered a suitable candidate stone
for the San Benito demonstration programme provided it is
available in a size range which enables fluidisation under
start-up conditions.
Gasification and desulphurisation of Texas lignite and
Illinois No. 6 sub-bituminous coal is possible in the CAFB
process. A minimum sulphur removal efficiency of 73$ was
observed, for Illinois No. 6, with 5^% of the carbon gasified.
Quantitative results for Texas lignite were not obtained due
to equipment unreliability. Conditions during these experi-
ments were not optimised and improved performance can be
expected with better control of the test conditions. The
ash present in the coal and lignite did not present any
difficulty, partictularly during regeneration conditions
when the higher temperature might lead to fusion. Most of
the ash was rejected from the system via the product gas
cyclones.
Task 2
The early part of Run 10 covered operations of a new
CAFB pilot unit on heavy fuel oil from the same batch as
that used during previous tests. A direct comparison is
therefore possible between the sulphur removal performance
achieved during Run 10 with that observed previously, the
major variable being the configuration of the gasifier,
regenerator and solids handling equipment.
Statistical evaluation of the Run 10 heavy fuel oil
results confirms that the sulphur removal efficiency achieved
for the new configuration is similar to that previously
observed, and that performance can be predicted using the
same operating variables already identified (see below and
(Ref. 3)). Thus it appears that the physical configuration
of the pilot unit is of at least second order importance in
its effect on the sulphur removal efficiency.
A new variable was identified during Run 10, viz bed
age. Thus, the time without limestone make-up has a cumu-
lative and significant effect on sulphur retention and
- 10 -
-------
therefore must be included with the significant variables
already found.
Sulphur removal efficiency can be predicted by a
multivariable polynomial equation based on the following
operating variables:
Gasifier bed depth
Gasifier bed temperature
Air/fuel ratio
Cyclone drain temperature
Ca/S mole ratio
Added water
Hours without limestone make-up
No correlation was found between variables associated
with the gasifier bed characteristics e.g. carbon, sulphur
levels, fines concentration, and sulphur retention and these
do not appear to have a consistent, independent effect on
the process.
The similarity of the regression equations for Runs 8,
9 and 10 independently meant that a generalised equation
could be developed. This was done by correcting each
equation to standard conditions and then combining them on a
weighted basis. The generalised equation was then applied
to each run separately and whilst some small loss of pre-
cision occurred as a consequence for the individual runs,
this is a minor disadvantage compared with the benefit of
having a single predictor.
The overall equation was successfully applied to
results obtained for TJ 102 Medium Vacuum Bottoms (Bitumen),
indicating that fuel characteristics are of secondary
importance in the CAFB process. A change of fuel type, e.g.
to solid fuels may however, demand separate treatment as
additional variables such as feed particle size distribution
may be significant.
A considerable improvement in precision is observed
compared to previously (Ref. 3) when the updated equation is
applied to the selected mean results available from Runs 6
and 7. Nevertheless, further examination of this information
is recommended using the hourly data sets. This will
further improve the precision of the regression equation,
and may lead to the identification of other important
variables.
It must be emphasised that regression equations of the
type developed here are empirical, and strictly should be
applied only within the range of the variables for which
-------
they were developed. Also they should not be applied to
data produced under significantly different operating
regimes, or equipment, unless this can be justified for
other reasons. However, physico-chemical reasons can be
advanced, and a tenable theory postulated to explain the
CAFB process in terms of the major variables identified, and
thus the regression equation developed can be applied as a
performance predictor as a first approximation in new
situations.
Tasks 3 and 4
These can be considered together, since it was possible
to bring forward into Task 3 the work planned under Task 4
as a consequence of the success of the new data handling
techniques.
Design features incorporated in the CAFB pilot plant
specifically to support the field demonstration programme
were generally proved to be effective. Thus, the two stage
gasifier distributor incorporating a central depression, or
pit, did not cause any difficulty with regard to bed fluid-
isation or deposits. Fall back of the lime bed was evident
but this was no worse than experienced previously and
essentially is a feature of nozzle design. Improvements
need to be made to minimise stone fall back for future
operations. The distributor design enabled fuel injectors
to be protected from tip burning by being contained in the
refractory pit wall whilst still providing good fuel dis-
tribution. No nozzle damage occurred as a result. Two
entries were provided for evaluation in the distributor viz
a hole drilled through the refractory and a "V" channel
exposed to the bed. Both alternatives were equally effective
and both allowed fuel injectors to be withdrawn and inserted
at will.
Fuel injection was carried out at a variety of loca-
tions, and combinations of locations during the run.
Initially, side injectors were used, but it proved possible
eventually to use a single pit injector to deliver all the
required fuel into the gasifier without resulting in any
loss of desulphurisation performance. It is intended to
make this a permanent feature of the pilot unit, thus
considerably simplifying the fuel supply system.
Bitumen was successfully injected in the same way and
was successfully gasified and desulphurised. Minor diffi-
culties were experienced with the bitumen delivery system
due to an inadequately heated filter which resulted in an
- 12 -
-------
inability to measure fuel flow. Improvements to this
feature are proposed if the need arises to use such fuels in
future.
Coal, (Illinois No. 6), was successfully injected pneu-
matically into the gasifier via a tuyere inserted through
the warm-up burner housing. Operations on a mix of coal and
bitumen was successfully demonstrated. However, coal
delivery was very erratic and it is not possible to provide
quantitative information on plant performance and a new coal
feed system is required to support further investigations on
solid fuels.
Two new means of dealing with carbon deposition in the
product gas ducts were considered, both with only limited
success. Air jets at the cyclone entry from the gasifier
proved to be completely ineffective in preventing deposit
accumulations. A procedure was evaluated to burn off the
deposits from the boiler burner end rather than the normal
burn out from the gasifier end, of the product gas ducts.
This was a partial success in that the duct deposits were
cleared effectively, but it was not possible to clear the
cyclone entries since contacting of oxygen with the carbon
deposits in these areas was not very efficient.
Flue gas recycle via a tuyere was successfully tested
and it is planned to make this a permanent feature for
future operations. Penetration of the flue gas tuyere into
the bed must be small to prevent burning. Flue gas clean-up
thus becomes a lower priority and it will be adequate to
partially clean the gas using a cyclone to remove the larger
particles potentially harmful to the gas recycle blowers.
Currently, flue gas is taken upstream of the stack cyclones;
it is proposed to provide a downstream take off to minimise
particle loadings.
As a result, the bag house filter installed for flue
gas clean-up is superfluous for the pilot plant. However,
as a feature for the field demonstration programme, a number
of aspects need improvement. A major requirement is that
the bag house filter will require facilities for warm-up
prior to use to avoid condensation on the filter fabric.
This proved to be a major problem as a solid cake was formed
which could not be cleared from the bag, causing excessive
pressure drop and greatly reduced flow. Also due to con-
densation, solids accumulating at the bottom of the filter
in the discharge hopper could not be removed. A minor
difficulty with the design used was leakage of gas from the
filter housing itself, but this could be easily overcome in
practice by modifying the housing construction.
- 13 -
-------
Other features not specifically associated with the
field demonstration project were evaluated and the following
conclusions reached.
The integrity of the gasifier and regenerator con-
struction was excellent with only minor cracking of the new
refractory having occurred during Run 10. The redesigned
cyclones performed very satisfactorily and there was no
excessive solids carry over into the boiler. The cyclone
drain and fines returns system were subject to difficulties
initially but operational modifications greatly improved
their performance. A re-design of the drain lock hoppers is
required to eliminate the accumulation of chunks of carbon
directly over the discharge line on the perforated retaining
plates. The solids transfer system was entirely satisfactory
after a solids accumulation caused by condensation in the
gasifier to regenerator transfer line was cleared early in
the run. However, the rodding ports available for this
system need to be enlarged. The limestone feed system was a
major problem area, and provision is needed to prevent the
excessive damping of the vibrator table experienced in Run
10.
The main gasifier blower was found to have leaks on the
casing and correction of the measured air flows were necess-
ary. The blower system was limited in capacity and a new,
positive displacement blower will be considered as a replace-
ment .
Regenerator performance was good throughout, but
characteristic deposit formations were found around the top
of the distributor at the end of the run. These arise when
the gasifier warm-up is in progress, when the cold regen-
erator behaves as a condenser. Agglomerates then form in
the relatively quiescent zone below the distributor nozzles
when the initial stone flow from the gasifier is established.
The layered insulation within the steel shell of the
gasifier and regenerator unit proved to be very effective
and the skin temperature was kept to no more than about
60*C, with no hot spots. The reduced heat losses mean that
shut downs become of lesser importance since the cooling of
the bed is now very slow. This opens up the possibility of
running short term tests e.g. daily, using the continuous
gasifier.
Persistent troubles were experienced with the gas
sampling system because of analyser reliability and leaks in
the sampling lines, particularly in the boiler gas sampling
train where a water knock out system was difficult to
seal.
- 14 -
-------
Task 5
Ongoing discussions were held with all EPA contracters
involved in the EPA CAFB programme. In particular, several
reviews of the demonstration plant design basis were held
with Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation. A formal design
review meeting was held at Esso Research Centre, Abingdon
during May 1976 (Ref. 9).
Task 6
Advantage was taken of a prolonged period, (68 hours),
during Run 10 when no fresh limestone could be added, to
investigate retention of trace elements present in the heavy
fuel oil feed. Samples taken at the start of this period,
after 24 hours, and at the end of the 68 hours were selected
for analysis. A comprehensive range of trace elements were
checked, but only a few could be estimated with sufficient
precision to enable sensible balances to be calculated.
In the short term, virtually all heavy trace metals
e.g. vanadium, chromium, nickel and lead are retained.
There is some retention of lighter elements such as potassium
and sodium.
Longer term, retention efficiency deteriorates and it
appears that fines produced in the bed carry trace elements
over to accumulate in the stack particulate collection
system. This was particularly true of the lighter elements.
The maximum concentration of vanadium observed on the
gasifier bed was 0.6 wt$.
The attrition rate of the limestone bed was measured
over this period and found to be 0.12 kg/hr./100 kg bed/m2
of gasifier bed area. At constant bed depth, this represents
a feed rate of approximately 0.2 moles of calcium per mole
of sulphur, for the fuel oil used in these tests.
- 15 -
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The fines returns system used during Run 10 will need
modification for future test work using coal. Means
will have to be incorporated to segregate ash for
rejection from the fines collection and return system.
Also, the need to re-inject lime and carbon fines from
below gasifier bed level at the San Benito demonstration
unit must be covered. If possible, a system simpler in
operation than that used during Run 10 should be
devised.
2. A suitable storage, transfer, metering and delivery
system for coal feed to the gasifier is required.
3. The gas analysis instrumentation used for Run 10 proved
unreliable with a number of troublesome breakdowns and
excessive drift requiring frequent calibration. To
improve reliability and to reduce down time, it is
recommended that new instrumentation is provided for
analysis of gas streams.
4. The flue gas recycle system can be modified to enable
recirculation directly via tuyeres into the gasifier
bed, thus eliminating the need for bag filters.
Bag filters, when used for flue gas clean-up, partic-
uarly on an intermittent basis, should be designed with
provisions for preheating, and insulation to avoid
condensation. Collecting hoppers should be designed to
enable easy discharge of solids.
5. In view of the improved insulation of the gasifier-
regenerator reactors, it is recommended that inter-
mittent operation of the pilot unit is investigated as
a means of improving the flexibility of operations.
Thus, a number of short term tests, spaced out over
a period of time could be carried out without need for
shift operations.
6. A number of other changes are recommended to improve
reliability, and flexibility of operating the pilot
unit. These include:
a) A new gasifier air blower.
b) Replacement of manometers by differential pressure
gauges.
c) Improved air nozzles to minimise lime fall back.
d) Fitting a gas oil injection system for the
regenerator to improve warm-up.
- 16 -
-------
e) Tapered nozzles for the gasifier and regenerator
pressure tappings to prevent blockage by increas-
ing bleed velocities.
f) Increasing the diameter of the solids transfer
system rodding ports.
7- A new heat exchanger is required for the boiler system
to restore the capacity of the system.
8. Arising from Run 10, the fuel oil feed system can be
considerably simplified and can be reduced to a single
injector located at the distributor pit.
9. Modifications are required to enable the lime feed
metering vibrator to function efficiently over long
periods by minimising packing of fines around the
vibrator supports.
10. The successful statistical analysis techniques developed
for describing the performance of the CAFB process on
liquid fuels should be extended to cover solids fuels.
11. If the limestone provided from Whites Mines, Texas is
confirmed for use in the San Benito demonstration unit,
it should be substituted for BCR 1359 for future test
runs. If an alternative supply source is preferred it
should be screened for suitability in the batch unit
before final selection for the demonstration plant or
the CAFB continuous pilot plant.
- 17 -
-------
DISCUSSION
CONTINUOUS PILOT PLANT STUDIES, RUN 10
PREPARATION OF CAFB CONTINUOUS PILOT PLANT FOR RUN 10
The pilot plant used up to Run 9 had exceeded approxi-
mately 5,000 test hours and during that time it had suffered
the stresses normally encountered during numerous start and
shut-downs together with several unplanned and uncontrolled
temperature excursions, pressure surges, and one propane-air
explosion. Numerous cracks were evident in the refractory,
several redundant penetrations were present, and the integral
cyclones for product clean-up were very sensitive to gasifier
pressure fluctuations.
It was therefore decided to break out the existing
gasifier, regenerator and cyclones and to completely redesign
and up-date the pilot unit to give an improved facility for
further studies.
Observations During Break Out
The gasifier refractory, apart from deep cracks and
some severe surface erosion at about 1m (3 ft) from the base
was in good condition. The bottom 1m (3 ft) of the regener-
ator refractory was very soft up to a depth of 5cm (2 inch),
and eroded to as much as 5 cm (2 inches), in places, par-
ticularly in the vicinity of the gasifier to regenerator
solids transfer outlet. Refractory in the upper portion of
the regenerator was in good condition.
Several gasifier refractory cracks were found to
continue through to the outside casing, and were stained
dark gray to black indicating that product gas, with its
associated tars had diffused through to the skin of the
pilot unit. Two cracks between the product gas cyclones and
the gasifier, and one crack between the right hand product
gas cyclone and the regenerator were also continuous and
could have caused gas leakage. The crack between the
gasifier and regenerator, extending from approximately 15 cm
(6 inch) from the base to 75 cm (30 inch) from the base was
also continuous and approximately 6.5 mm (0.25 inch) wide in
places. The product gas cyclones were badly eroded, (up to
1.5 cm (0.6 inches) opposite the gas entries) and at the
bases of the cones.
- 18 -
-------
Calcium silicate insulating slab at the base of the
gasifier-regenerator monolith was, in places, completely
saturated with tar.
Self bonded silicon carbide pipes, supplied by British
Nuclear Fuels, used for product gas cyclone off-takes,
lining the lower parts of the cyclone drains and the fines
returns injector, and as a sleeve insert around the regener-
ator distributor were all found to be in excellent condition.
These observations during the break out of the old unit
confirmed most of the assumptions based on the initial,
external examination. Particularly, the crack between the
gasifier and regenerator vessels, and the accumulations of
tarry deposits in the insulation were worse than expected.
Features Noted for Redesigned Equipment
The type of refractory used for the gasifier-regenerator
monolith was considered suitable for CAFB operations with an
expected in-service life of at least 6,000 hours for the
gasifier and upper part of the regenerator, and 3,000 hours
for the lower portion of the regenerator.
To minimise cracking, the gasifier-regenerator separating
wall must have either a gas proof membrane, or some flexi-
bility to allow independent movement of the two components.
Corners and severe discontinuities in the refractory should
be avoided if possible but it would be desirable to incorp-
orate planes of weakness so that refractory cracks occur in
predictable fashion in regions where they are of little
consequence.
Provision should be made to pressurise the outer
insulating layer to slightly above the gasifier and regener-
ator operating pressure to prevent leakage of product gas
containing tars through cracks in the refractory when these
propagate through to the walls of the unit.
The regenerator should be arranged so that, if necessary,
it can be broken out and re-cast without affecting the
gasifier, as its life expectancy is less than the gasifier.
Improved cyclones need to be less sensitive to pressure
fluctuations and to erosion opposite the gas inlet whilst
the cyclone drains should be lined with a higher grade
refractory.
Self bonded silicon carbide as supplied by British
Nuclear Fuels Limited appears to be an eminently suitable
material of construction for locations where the environment
- 19 -
-------
is particularly hostile but where mechanical stress is not a
serious problem. Silicon carbide is brittle and liable to
break up when treated to mechanical stock.
Basis of New Design
The experience summarised above proved invaluable as a
starting point in arriving at a new design for the CAFB
pilot plant. A detailed discussion of the design and
construction of the new unit is given in Appendix A in terms
of the required range of process operations and within the
limitations of the physical facilities and services capac-
ities available. A summary of the major features follows,
and includes the changes incorporated as a direct result of
experience with the original unit and to accommodate specific
items to support the design of the demonstration unit
planned at San Benito in Texas.
Improved insulation was incorporated to reduce heat
losses and skin temperature to more closely simulate a
larger installation, and the skin was pressurised slightly
to prevent leakage of product gas and tars into the insu-
lation and the occurrence of local hot spots. The gasifier
was designed with a circular section, as was the regenerator
and they were cast in separate refractory monoliths. These,
and other precautions such as provision of expansion joints,
were intended to minimise cracking. Such cracks as were
expected to develop were arranged to be in areas of refractory
where they would be relatively unimportant, by suitable
location of anchor points in the refractory.
External cyclones providing high gas flow with minimum
pressure drop and high efficiency were designed with external
snail gas entry ducts to increase gas velocity and were
confidently expected to be insensitive to normal pressure
and flow fluctuations through the system. New product gas
ducting was needed to accommodate the revised plant lay
out.
Specific items relating to the demonstration unit were
planned for in the new design. A two level gasifier air
distributor was incorporated, allowing fuel injectors to be
inserted into a central pit through a protective refractory
layer. Provisions were made to recycle flue gas directly
into the gasifier bed via a tuyere to reduce the need for
particulate clean-up of the flue gas stream. As an altern-
ative, a bag filter was incorporated to provide operating
experience and to evaluate design and performance features.
New systems were designed to handle liquid fuels heavier
than the normal heavy fuel oil feed used for the pilot unit;
- 20 -
-------
heated storage, lines, metering and pumping facilities were
provided, and a temporary system was constructed to demon-
strate the feasibility of pneumatic injection of solid fuel
into the gasifier.
These major changes meant a larger number of modifi-
cations to most of the sub systems of the pilot plant.
Particularly, numerous changes were made to the air and
nitrogen systems, the gas sampling trains, the pressure
monitoring equipment, the heavy fuel oil supply system, the
gasifier, regenerator fluidising air and flue gas recycle
supply systems and the cyclone drain-fines re-inection
system. These in turn demanded changes to the operating
procedures.
The equipment lay out and operating procedures for the
new pilot plant, as used for run 10, are detailed in
Appendix D.
EXPERIENCE WITH NEW PILOT PLANT DURING RUN 10
A summary on a daily basis of the Run 10 log is given
in Appendix C; highlights of the operating experience
during run 10 are given below.
The integrity of the gasifier, regenerator, cyclones
and hot gas ducts was more than satisfactory, but the usual
teething problems associated with the functioning, perform-
ance, and reliability of new equipment were experienced from
time to time. During the run, most of these difficulties
were solved, but some experimental equipment did not give
satisfactory, reliable performance throughout the test
period. As a consequence, the run did not proceed smoothly,
particularly during the early periods when most of the
difficulties came to light, and moreover, the reasons for
some of the automatic plant shut downs could not be traced
conclusively since attention was often directed to some
aspect of plant performance other than the functioning of
the gasifier and regenerator. The progress of the run can
conveniently be broken down as follows.
Pre-run refractory curing and warm-up
This proceeded smoothly throughout with only minor
unavoidable interruptions due to the need to complete final
construction details and to link in various associated
auxiliary systems and equipment.
- 21 -
-------
Days 1-7
Gasification of heavy fuel oil was carried out during
this time with a service factor on the plant of 11%.
It was obvious however, that there were serious oper-
ational difficulties with the cyclone drain, fines returns,
solids transfer, limestone feed and gas sampling systems and
these caused the eventual shut down on day 7 so that the
problems could be examined on a systematic basis.
Days 7-12
Essentially the unit was inoperative throughout this
period during which modifications were made to improve those
parts of the system proving troublesome as identified above.
Also, a new regenerator distributor of a different type was
fabricated and fitted.
Days 12-19
Fuel oil gasification was in progress for most of the
time with one continuous run of 107.5 hours. Plant control
and performance was greatly improved but the limestone feed
system still did not function satisfactorily and problems
still occurred with the gas sampling systems. The service
factor over this period was 82%.
During this period, a variety of experiments were
carried out including fuel oil injection through a single
injector, steam injection, and an extended period of oper-
ation without fresh limestone make-up.
Days 19-21
Bitumen was substituted for the heavy fuel oil and
successfully gasified and desulphurised. Flow measurement
of the bitumen was not possible due to plugging of inadequately
heated filters upstream of the flow meter.
Boiler over heating problems curtailed these experiments.
Days 21-22
Coal gasification was successfully demonstrated though
with generally poor plant performance as flow control with a
very simple feed system was difficult. Illinois No.6 coal
- 22 -
-------
was used at a rate of 50% of the total fuel feed, with the
remainder being bitumen.
Throughout the total period, including the prolonged
shut down, a total of 520 hours were available for gasifi-
cation. In fact, fuel oil was gasified for 263.5 hours,
bitumen for 3^.5 hours and coal + bitumen for 7.5 hours
giving an overall service factor of approximately 59% for
the run. After elimination of incomplete and obviously
erroneous data sets, and taking into account periods when
time did not permit data collection, a total of 192 hours
data on heavy fuel oil, and 17 hours on bitumen were avail-
able for detailed analysis. No data collection was possible
for the short period of coal/bitumen gasification.
A summary of the performance and reliability of the
equipment during the run is given in Table 1.
During days 4-21, personnel from GCA Technology
Division were present to conduct an assessment of the
environmental impact of the CAFB process.
INSPECTION OF PILOT UNIT, POST RUN 10
The post run inspection revealed that there was no
serious damage to the refractory lined reactors and vessels
viz gasifier, regenerator, cyclones and product gas ducts,
including the gasifier and regenerator distributors and
lids. However, considerable deposits of carbon were present
in the cooler regions of the gasifier and in the product gas
lines as the unit was shut down whilst on gasification so
that deposits could be examined.
Some small accumulations of agglomerated material
comprising carbon and lime were present in the gasifier pit
and approximately 30$ of the air nozzle holes were plugged.
The plenum contained a quantity of lime which had fallen
through the fluidising nozzles during the run.
Deposits were found above the regenerator distributor,
and also in the transfer system entry boxes in the gasifier
and regenerator.
Accumulation of carbon chunks were present in the
cyclone drain system, retained by a perforated plate inserted
for this purpose. However, they accumulated immediately
- 23 -
-------
TABLE 1
EQUIPMENT RELIABILITY DURING RUN 10
Component
Cyclone Drain/
Fines Re-injection
Solids Transfer
Limestone Feed
Vibrator
Regenerator
Pressure Tappings
and Manometers
Flue Gas Recycle
Bag House
Details of Malfunction
Valve blockages
Line blockages
Electrical control
box faults
Blocked ducts
Faulty valves
Excessive damping
Electrical supply failure
Blockages
Failure to fluidise
Off-take leak
Blocked tappings
Blown manometers
Leaks
Housing leaks
Bags wet, blocked
Drain hopper blocked
Gasifier Air Blowers Leaks
Heavy Flue Oil
Delivery
Bitumen Delivery
Boiler
Analytical Equipment
Number of
Incidents
6
24
2
12
5
Continuous
1
10
5
1
Continuous
2
3
3
2
Seized pump 1
Trace heating cold 2
Faulty secondary heating 3
Leaks 2
Blockages 1
Trace heating inadequate 1
Overheating 3
Regenerator sample line 7
blocked
Regenerator sample line leak 1
Boiler gas sampling train 10
leaks
Electrical Equipment Faulty chart recorders
- 24 -
-------
above the fines discharge line, and thus seriously interfered
with the flow of fines through this system.
Further details of the unit strip down, together with
photographic evidence can be found in Appendix C.
ANALYSIS OF CONTINUOUS RUN 10 RESULTS
Introduction
Previous reports in this series have described how the
results from runs 6 to 9 inclusive were analysed (Refs. 1,
2). For run 10, following initial work-up of the results
this statistical approach has been continued and each hour's
data has been considered separately. The value of this
approach was demonstrated during the course of run 10, when
the equation derived from runs 8 and 9 was found to give a
good prediction of the sulphur removal efficiency observed
for the rebuilt CAFB pilot unit. This proved to be a
valuable tool for monitoring plant performance on an ongoing
basis during the run.
Thus, a stepwise multiple regression analysis technique
was used on all the run 10 results to identify the variables
of major importance describing the plant performance. The
linearity, or otherwise, of the contribution of each variable
in turn was investigated and a polynomial expression derived
if appropriate. The functions thus derived for each variable
then constituted an expression giving the optimum correlation
of the measured sulphur removal efficiency for the plant
during run 10.
This exercise was conducted for the results available
for heavy fuel oil thus enabling a direct comparison to be
made between run 10 and the previous runs. Following this
comparison, an exercise was conducted to produce a single
equation which best described the sulphur removal performance
of the CAFB pilot plant.
Data collected for operations on bitumen was not
included for the initial analysis, but the heavy fuel oil
equation was subsequently applied to the limited results
available to establish the relevance of the equation.
No such comparison could be made for coal as CAFB fuel on
this instance as no readings were taken due to the demands
of running the unit with the crude coal feed system.
An outline of the statistical techniques used for
analysis follows, after which the detailed data analysis is
discussed.
- 25 -
-------
Statistical Analysis Techniques
Stepwise Multiple Regression
Stepwise multiple regression analysis of the data was
carried out using a standard programme 'Mul-Correlation1
available on the Honeywell MK III Foreground "STATSYST"
system. This programme produces linear equations of the
form: -
y = b0 + b-|X-| + b2X2 + --- t>raXm + e
where y is the dependent variable
X1 > --- xm are tne independent variables
t>0> --- bm are the regression coefficients to be
determined
e is a random error term which gives the difference
between the predicted and actual values for the
dependent variable
In this stepwise regression routine, the basic premise
which distinguishes it from conventional approaches to
multiple regression is that intermediate partial regression
equations are developed to indicate whether a variable is
significant in an early stage of the regression calculation
so that it may be entered into the regression at that stage.
The final regression equation should, therefore, only
contain significant variables. The programme allows the
user to specify the level of significance such that the
independent variable is entered or removed from the regress-
ion equation during the analysis. However, it is possible
to override this mechanism and force a variable into the
regression equation despite the fact that it may not meet
the specified significance level criteria. This is obviously
useful when the variable is known to be significant from
other sources.
Limitations of Multiple Regression
Although multiple regression analysis, including
stepwise, is an extremely powerful tool, it is subject to
certain limitations which the user should be aware of in
order not to be led astray.
Perhaps the most important point to remember is that it
is not possible to infer cause and effect relationships from
regression analysis. The fact that a dependent variable is
highly correlated with an independent variable in no way
- 26 -
-------
suggests that a change in the independent variable causes a
change in the dependent variable. Although such relation-
ships may exist they cannot be proved. We can say that
the results do not refute the theory, but neither do they
prove it.
A second important point is that regression relation-
ships are empirical equations that apply only to the range
of data on which they are based. Extrapolation can lead to
highly erroneous results. Since regression equations are
based on the experimental data, then the equation is no more
accurate than the data. If the data is subject to large
experimental error, the regression equation will predict
inaccurately.
An underlying assumption in regression analysis is that
the independent variables are truly independent, and that
there are no interactions between variables. In practice
great skill in experimental design is needed to achieve this
end, and sometimes in complex processes, such as this one,
it is only possible to a limited extent.
A final important point to remember is that regression
analysis assumes linear relationships between the dependent
variables and the independent variables. In order to deal
with variables which are obviously non-linear, it is
necessary to transform the variable into some algebraic
function of itself before carrying out the regression.
Development of Polynomial Equations
In order to develop polynomial expressions for the
non-linear variables identified as significant from the
linear regression stage, the following steps were taken.
1. Assume as a first approximation that all the regression
variables are linear except for one. Correct the %
sulphur removal efficiency experimental values using
the linear regression coefficients for all the variables
except the one for deviations away from the mean values
of these variables.
2. Plot the corrected % sulphur removal efficiency values
against the selected variable and to improve accuracy,
average the data into boxes covering the experimental
range of the variable e.g. for bed depth, results would
be averaged in the range 90-100 cm, 100-110 cm etc.
3. Repeat for each variable in turn.
- 27 -
-------
4. The optimum polynomial expression for the relationship
between the variable and the sulphur removal effici-
ency may then be found using standard statistical
techniques. In this instance, a Polynomial-Fit pro-
gramme included in the Honeywell MK III "STATSYST"
package was used to investigate the linearity, or non
linearity of each significant variable.
This programme calculates coefficients and comparative
data for fitting polynomials of the form:
y = a + bx + cx^ + dx3 + mx?
where the coefficients a, b m may or may not be zero.
The equation has maximum order 7, and the programme allows
weighting factors to be used, so that it was very suitable
for application to the grouped data approach adopted in this
analysis.
Obviously, having carried out this exercise starting
with the assumption that the variables were linear, a
recycle through the steps above starting with the non-linear
equations would be possible with an improvement in the
precision of the equation so derived. However, this
is costly in both time and money and the resulting benefit
is likely to be of doubtful value. It was not included in
this analysis.
A useful tool throughout the analysis stage was to plot
the residual error viz. % sulphur removal efficiency
(measured - calculated) against time throughout the run.
This enabled periods to be identified where consistent, and
occasionally large discrepancies occurred, and by reference
to the run log book and data sheets it was usually possible
to pinpoint the causes. Thus additional important variables
could be investigated and occassionally errors in input data
could be identified.
Computer programmes described previously (Refs. 2, 3)
were used for the data grouping and graph plotting exercises,
Run 10 Data Analysis
Editing of Run 10 Raw Data
During the run, a total of 264 hours gasification of
heavy fuel oil was accumulated over varying time periods.
Generally, data was recorded for each hour's operation for
most of the time. However, it was evident at the outset of
the analysis that some data sets would have to be rejected
- 28 -
-------
for various reasons. Some sets were incomplete so that the
% sulphur removal efficiency could not be calculated as one
or more important variables were missing. Results taken
within an hour or two of start up, particularly after a bed
sulphation step, were ignored as the plant performance was
not lined out; some periods of gasification were too brief,
and occasionally time was not available to record data when
plant operational problems demanded priority. Finally, some
data was eliminated during the statistical analysis stage
when good reasons were identified that plant performance was
far removed from normal.
After elimination of the inconsistent and inaccurate
data, a total of 192 separate hourly readings were available
for statistical evaluation for heavy fuel oil, and 17 hours
for bitumen.
Preliminary Data Work-up
The data co-ordination and work up programmes have been
described in an earlier report (Ref. 2). These were used
with only some minor detailed modifications to the programmes
to take into account the different solids sampling and
removal pattern during Run 10, and the different configur-
ation of the new unit.
The end result of the data work up is a consolidated
data file which contains all the information to produce the
output tables and which served as the data source for the
starting point of the statistical analysis stage.
Linear Regression Analysis of Run 10 Results
The multiple regression programme "MUL-CORRELATION"
produces a table giving the correlation coefficients of each
selected variable with the % sulphur removal efficiency and
also the intercorrelation of each variable with all the
others included in the analysis.
This information is useful in identifying the variables
which are truly independent. A negative correlation co-
efficient indicates that as one variable increases, the
other decreases; positive correlation coefficients indicate
that the two variables increase or decrease together. The
square of the correlation coefficient (x 100$) gives the
"% explained" of the variation of one variable by the other.
Thus, a correlation coefficient of 1 indicates that the
variables are indistinguishable and 0 that they are truly
independent. Obviously, low values of the correlation
- 29 -
-------
coefficients are desirable to simplify the statistical
analysis.
Table 2 lists the correlation matrix for the variables
selected for examination for Run 10. Additional variables
were included for this analysis compared to Runs 8 and 9.
In particular, it was possible to investigate the effect of
elapsed time without the addition of fresh limestone i.e.
the bed age effect.
An arbitrary value of the correlation coefficient of
+0.5 has been selected to identify the variables of major
interest. This gives a % explained of 25% or greater,
indicating that a reasonably high degree of interdependence
exists. These are underlined in Table 2.
Correlation of % Sulphur Removal Efficiency with Process
Variables
Table 3 compares the correlation of common process
variables with % sulphur removal efficiency for Runs 8, 9
and 10.
Good agreement is shown for all three runs with respect
to gasifier bed depth, cyclone drain temperature, added
water, Ca/S mole ratio, and bed velocity, with the coeffic-
ients being comparable in sign i.e. effect, and to some
extent in magnitude also. These variables can in general be
considered to be good predictors of % sulphur removal
efficiency.
Bed temperature, bed carbon and bed fines are also in
good agreement in that all have poor correlation with %
sulphur removal efficiency. Under these circumstances, the
apparent change in effect is not of any significance.
Bed sulphur level intercorrelation shows quite wide
fluctuation, with the Run 10 result showing low significance.
This may not be entirely unexpected when the results for
Runs 8 and 9 are considered.
Strictly, according to the criterion for significance
applied, the results for air/fuel are similar. However,
directionally Run 10 appears to be different with a much
lower correlation coefficient and an unexpected, negative
relationship. It was thought that this was due to a lack of
variation in air/fuel ratios during Run 10, but as Table 4
shows, this was intermediate between the Run 8 and 9 vari-
ation and thus could not be offered as an explanation.
Thus, no explanation for the poor correlation of the Run 10
air/fuel ratio can be proposed at this stage.
- 30 -
-------
TABLE 2
uo
I
VARIABLE
Sulphur Removal
Efficiency (?)
Gasifier Bed
Depth (cm)
Gasifier Bed
Temp. (°C)
Air/Fuel Ratio
Cyclone Temp. (°C)
Added Water (m3/hr)
Ca/S Mole Ratio
Gasifier Bed S
(wt %)
Gasifier Bed C
(wt %)
Gasifier Bed
Sulphate (wt %)
Gasifier Bed
Velocity (ra/sec)
Gasifier Air
(n)3/hr)
Fuel (kg/hr)
Gasifier Bed Fines,
600-250^ (wt %)
Time With No Stone
Added (hr)
CORRELATION MATRIX FOR RUN 10 VARIABLES
SULPHUR GASIFIER GASIFIER AIR/ CYCLONE ADDED Ca/S GASIFIER
REMOVAL BED BED FUEL TEMP. WATER MOLE BED S
EFFICIENCY DEPTH TEMP. RATIO (°C) (m3/hr) RATIO (wt %)
% (era) (°C)
1.00 0.70 -0.12 -0.17 0.58 -0.55 0.51 -0.12
1.00 -0.20 0.10 0.83 -0.23 0.23 -0.09
1.00 -0.06 -0.21 -0.2? -0.10 0.31
1.00 0.18 0.28 -0.12 -0.30
1.00 -0.21 0.27 -0.28
1.00 -0.28 -0.15
1.00 -0.11
1.00
cont ....
-------
TABLE 2 (Continued)
I
U)
VARIABLE
Sulphur Removal
Efficiency (%)
Gasifier Bed
Depth (cm)
Gasifier Bed
Temp. CO
Air/Fuel Ratio
Cyclone Temp. CO
Added Water (m3/hr)
Ca/S Mole Ratio
Gasifier Bed S
(wt %)
Gasifier Bed C
(wt %)
Gasifier Bed
Sulphate (wt %)
Gasifier Bed
Velocity (m/sec)
Gasifier Air
(m^/hr)
Fuel (kg/hr)
Gasifier Bed Fines,
GASIFIER
BED C
(wt *)
0.30
0.31
0.19
-0.29
0.10
-0.19
0.0?
0.52
1.00
GASIFER
SULFATE
(wt «
-0.09
-0.06
-0.15
0.08
-0.06
0.31
-0.07
-0.09
0.33
1.00
GASIFIER
BED
VELOCITY
(m/sec)
-0.11
0.19
0.01
0.81
0.25
0:23
-0.21
-0.21
-0.23
0.01
1.00
GASIFIER
AIR
(m-5 hr)
0.21
0.11
0.08
0.53
0.51
-0.05
0.16
-0.23
0.08
0.11
0.52
1.00
FUEL
(kg/hr)
0.10
0.36
0.13
-0.19
0.35
-0.31
0.22
0.11
0.37
-0.01
-0.19
0.13
1.00
GASIFIER
BED FINES,
600-250U
(wt %)
0.12
0.09
0.01
-0.11
0.00
-0.26
-0.09
0.21
0.09
-0.36
-0.0?
-0.32
-0.15
1.00
TIME WITH
NO STONE
ADDED (hr)
-0.72
-0.11
-0.03
0.30
-0.12
0.57
-0.13
-0.17
-0.28
0.29
0.28
-0.01
-0.35
-0.37
600-250^1 (wt %)
Time With No Stone
Added (hr)
1.00
-------
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS WITH
% SULPHUR REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR RUNS 8, 9 and 10
VARIABLE
RUN 8
RUN 9
RUN 10
Bed Depth (cm)
Bed Temperature (°C)
Air/Fuel Ratio
Cyclone Temperature °C
Added Water (m /hr)
Ca/S Mole Ratio
Bed Sulphur (wt %}
Bed Carbon (wt %)
Bed Velocity (m/sec)
Bed Fines 600-250 jj, (wt %)
0.49
0.13
0.35
0.31
-0.87
0.27
0.38
0. 16
-0.21
-0.003
0.61
-0.19
0.34
0.56
-0.25
0.27
-0.42
-0. 16
-0.19
-0.01
0.70
-0. 12
-0. 17
0.58
-0.55
0.51
-0. 12
0.30
-0.14
0.12
- 33 -
-------
TABLE 4
VARIABLE
Sulphur Removal '
Efficiency (%)
Bed Depth (cm)
Bed Temperature ( *C)
Bed Velocity (m/sec)
Air Rate (m^/hr)
Fuel Rate (kg/hr)
Air /Fuel Ratio
(% Stoichiometric )
Added Water
(nrVhr)
Ca/S Mole Ratio
Cyclone Drain
Temperature (*C)
Bed Carbon (wt %}
Bed Sulphur (wt %)
Bed Sulphate (wt %}
Bed Fines (600-250u)
SUMMARY
MEAN
VALUE
77.1
91.0
891
1.62*
-
-
23.9
16.6
1.58
365
0.3
5.2
16.4
STATISTICS FOR RUNS
RUN 8
STANDARD
DEVIATION
10.8
11.8
13.2
0.17*
-
-
1.9
13.1
0.7
109
0.5
1.8
3.7
MEAN
VALUE
79.1
103.1
921
1.70*
-
-
26.9
4.8
1.23
356
0.24
4.5
18.4
8, 9, 10
RUN 9
STANDARD
DEVIATION
6.8
14.0
24.5
0.23*
-
-
3.4
8.6
0.9
134
0.5
1.1
5.9
MEAN
VALUE
74.9
110.0
920
1.54
320.1
128.6
23.9
4.0
0.82
279
0.34
3.98
0.04
27.7
RUN 10
STANDARD
DEVIATION
8.0
11.6
23.2
0.27
31.2
9.6
2.7
8.9
1.2
113
0.31
0.98
0.04
2.7
Time Without Fresh
Limestone Feed (hr)
12.6
20.1
* Corrected values from results provided in (Ref.2)
-------
Table 2 shows that the bed age effect, i.e. the period
of time for which no bed make up was added is a very import-
ant variable, showing the highest correlation of all with
the % sulphur removal efficiency. This effect was quantified
for the purpose of statistical evaluation by assigning the
natural number sequence (1, 2, 3 ) for successive hours
without limestone make up. The variable does not appear in
the analysis for previous runs as stone make up was supplied
virtually throughout the run.
Intercorrelation of Other Process Variables
Some significant (i.e. greater than 0.5) correlation
coefficients are shown for some of the other dependent
variables also. Comments are given below.
Bed depth and Cyclone Drain Temperature
The cyclone drain temperature is a crude measurement of
the rate of fines recirculation through the main gas cyclones
back into the gasifier bed. It can be expected that the
deeper the bed, the greater is the opportunity for fines to
enter the gasifier outlet gas ducts and the cyclones, and
hence the greater the cyclone drain temperature. This
strong correlation is therefore gratifying.
Air/Fuel Ratio and Bed Velocity
This is a natural correlation. As leaner operation is
introduced at a fixed fuel flow rate (i.e. the air rate to
the gasifier increases) so bed velocity also increases.
Air/Fuel Ratio and Gasifier Air and Fuel Rates
As might be expected, there is a strong correlation
between air/fuel ratio and gasifier air, since air rate
and bed velocity are correlated (see above). Similarly
there is a strong correlation, in the opposite direction,
with the fuel rate.
Gasifier Air and Gasifier Bed Velocity
This correlation is significant but not as great as
might be expected due to the fact that the gasifier bed
velocity is calculated on the basis of the air rate plus
flue gas recycle rate. Flue gas recycle was used at various
times throughout Run 10.
- 35 -
-------
Added Water and Time Without Stone Addition
This is a purely fortuitous correlation due to the
addition of steam towards the end of the no stone addition
period. Thus, high water addition rates are naturally
associated with high bed age variable values.
Bed Carbon and Bed Sulphur
The correlation matrix indicates that high bed sulphur
levels are associated with high bed carbon levels. During
the run, there were periods when the unit was operated with
high carbon levels on the gasifier bed and as a consequence,
the regenerator was overcarboned and out of action. During
these periods there would be an accumulation of sulphur on
the gasifier bed, leading directionally to be intercorre-
lation observed.
Summary Statistics for Run 10
Mean values and standard deviations for Run 10 are
given in Table 4. These results are for heavy fuel oil, and
thus can be compared directly with Runs 8 and 9, both in
terms of the mean values and in the standard deviation. The
latter gives a measure for how widely conditions were varied
during the run, and a high value is desirable, showing that
a wide range of operating conditions are covered in order
to improve the precision of the statistical analysis of the
data. Comments on particular aspects of the summary results
are given below.
% Sulphur Removal Efficiency
Overall, Run 10 sulphur removal efficiency was compar-
able to the previous runs, the slightly lower value for the
mean % sulphur removal performance indicating only that the
unit was operated during Run 10 under less favourable
conditions for sulphur retention than for Runs 8 and 9.
Bed Depth
Generally, the gasifier bed depth was greater during
Run 10 than previously, but surprisingly in view of the lack
of stone addition for long periods, did not show the expected
greater fluctuations.
- 36 -
-------
Bed Velocity and Stoichiometry
Bed velocity results reported for Runs 8 and 9 have
been found to be in error for two reasons.
First of all, the recorded air flows to the gasifier
are too high due to leakage downstream of the orifice plate
and the blower. Secondly, a correction factor had been
omitted from the equation used in the work-up programme
ZKDAT (Ref. 2) to calculate bed velocity.
Thus, the bed velocity results in Table 4 for Runs 8
and 9 have been corrected for the omission of the correction
factor in ZKDAT.
However, correction for the loss of air downstream of
the measuring orifice plate is more difficult, since there
is no way in retrospect of determining when the leak devel-
oped and how it changed with time. As a rough estimate,
when the leak was corrected during Run 10, a slight increase
in the gasifier bed temperature was observed indicating that
the magnitude of the leak was great enough to change the
Stoichiometry. It was possible to calculate that there was
approximately \% leaning off of the air/fuel ratio and that
the gasifier air rate increased by 4.3$ (13-5 m3/hr or 8 cfm)
though a significant change in the orifice plate pressure
measurement could not be detected at the time. In view of
the speculative nature of these deductions, no corrections
have been made to the data in Table 4 for leakage, either to
bed velocity or Stoichiometry.
Nevertheless, the presence of the leak, and the doubts
raised as a consequence, are important in explaining differ-
ences between runs so far as the Stoichiometry - sulphur
removal efficiency relationship is concerned. Comments will
be made on this point later.
Stone Feed Rate and Time Without Limestone Make-Up
The average fresh limestone make-up rate was relatively
lower and more variable for Run 10 due to operational
problems with the limestone feed equipment. There was one
continuous period of 68 hours during which no fresh lime-
stone was added, and this permitted the bed age effect to be
investigated. It was necessary to quantify the time vari-
able, and this was simply done by assigning zero values to
hourly data when stone was added, and the natural number
sequence 1, 2 to successive hours when no fresh lime-
stone was fed. The average value of 12.6 hours thus arises
- 37 -
-------
mainly from the 68 hours when the stone feed system was
inoperative.
The rate at which stone was added is identified by the
Ca/S Mole Ratio.
Cyclone Drain Temperature
A significant difference is seen between Run 10 and
previously. The thermocouples used to measure the cyclone
drain temperatures during Run 10 were located diffferently
in the redesigned unit and resulted in the average temper-
atures, taken as the mean of the drain temperatures for each
of the cyclones, being 80°C lower than before. The variations
observed are comparable for the three runs.
In general, it can be concluded that the overall
results for Run 10 are very similar to Runs 8 and 9, the
only major differences of consequence being the cyclone
drain temperature mean, and the operation of the pilot
unit without stone make-up for a prolonged period during Run
10.
Linear Regression Equations for Run 10
As for the analysis described for Runs 8 and 9,
(Ref. 3), a comprehensive investigation was carried out of
the Run 10 results to establish the variables of importance
in describing the performance of the pilot plant gasifier
sulphur removal performance. As a starting point, the
variables identified in Table 4 were selected as likely
candidates. Due to intercorrelation effects, it was necess-
ary to evaluate gasifier bed depth and cyclone temperature
by combining them into a simple function, using the average
coefficients for Runs 8 and 9 to proportion the effects.
Thus, a function defined as (0.16 Bed Depth + 0.013 Cyclone
Drain Temperature) was derived and found to be of high
significance. This was justified on the grounds that the
intercorrelation of bed depth with cyclone drain temperature
is much higher for Run 10 and therefore the linear regression
equation could include either variable, but not both together,
An equally good correlation is obtained by combining the two
variables, and this step enables a better comparison to be
made with previous results.
It was found that the significance of bed temperature
was low for the Run 10 data and this variable had to be
forced into the regression equation.
- 38 -
-------
In order of importance, the regression analysis selected
the following variables to explain the % sulphur removal
efficiency observed:
Hours without limestone addition i.e the bed age
effect.
Bed depth and cyclone drain temperature (combined
variable).
Ca/S mole ratio.
Added water.
Air/fuel ratio.
Bed temperature (strictly not significant but forced).
The coefficients obtained from the regression analysis
are worth comparing with previous results - see Table 5.
Generally, the linear regression equations are con-
sistent with regard to the effect of the individual variables.
The exception is air/fuel ratio for Run 10 which unexpectedly
appears to have an adverse effect of sulphur removal effici-
ency. An explanation for this result will be given when the
results of the non linearity of the variables is discussed.
It was found also that a better correlation for Run 10 was
obtained with added water, rather than with its square as
previously. Comments are made below on the reasons why this
should be so.
Reasonably good consistency between the magnitude of
the coefficients is seen for bed depth, Ca/S mole ratio,
cyclone drain temperature, and to a lesser extent, bed
temperature. Similarly, residual errors and % variation are
comparable across the three runs.
Analysis of Non Linearity of Process Variables
An outline of the mechanism of deriving polynomial
expressions for individual variables to improve the fit of
results has been described earlier.. Whilst the techniques
used are as described, differencies were introduced into the
analysis which required some re-working of the results for
Runs 8 and 9.
One of the objectives of the statistical analysis is to
derive an overall relationship between the % sulphur removal
efficiency and the process variables identified as important.
Obviously, this is desirable so that a single equation is
available for further application. However, the precision
of the equation is improved as the amount of data available
- 39 -
-------
TABLE 5
I
o
Constant
Residual
% Explained
LINEAR REGRESSION EQUATIONS TO
RUNS
VARIABLE
h (cm)
erature ( *C)
Ratio (% Stoichiometric)
Drain Temperature (°C)
ter (m3/hr)
e Ratio
th no limestone addition
Error
ned
f Results
PREDICT %
8, 9 and
RUN
0.
-0.
0.
0.
-0.
1.
-
71.
3.
86.
408
1
1
SULPHUR
0
8
5
035
94
0065
0
9
8
1 1*
6
94
8
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
RUN
0.
-0.
0.
0.
-0.
1 .
-
112.
4.
64.
471
9
17
073
38
017
011*
18
3
06
5
RUN
0.
-0.
-0.
0.
-0.
1.
-0.
58.
4.
74.
192
10
1
8
002
1
0
0
3
1
9
1
1
1
2
5
8
45
1
1
3
* Square of variable used
-------
for analysis increases. So from a number of standpoints it
is advantageous to be able to combine the data from Runs 8,
9 and 10, provided that the three runs are statistically
similar, i.e. the results are derived for essentially
similar experiments in similar equipment.
Little in the way of changes and modifications were
carried out between Run 8 and 9 so combining these results
is reasonable. However, prior to Run 10, a massive redesign
and rebuild of equipment was undertaken and it is therefore
fair to question whether these data can be included with the
others. This question was looked at very closely and it was
decided on the basis of the results of the linear regression
analysis that the new unit configuration as used for Run 10
behaved in a manner sufficiently similar to the previous
unit to merit combining all the data together to produce one
overall equation.
To achieve this, Run 10 results were treated as des-
cribed, taking a single variable and investigating its
relationship with the sulphur removal efficiency after
compensating for the values of all the other variables away
from their means. Also, the results for each variable were
subdivided into groups within the range of the variable in
order to improve accuracy.
For Run 8 and 9, the data had already been worked up to
give a single equation, corrected to the mean values of the
variables for each separate run. In this form, the data was
not amenable to combination with Run 10 since the correct
weighting factors had to be applied to the individual run
means. Neither was it desirable to merge Run 10 data with
the combined Run 8 and 9 equation. This method of data
evaluation would mean that each time additional data became
available the exercise of taking each run results separately
before merging would be necessary.
This difficulty was easily overcome by correcting the
results for each run separately to a standard set of values
ascribed to each variable in the equation. It was convenient
to take this as the design parameters used by Foster-Wheeler
Energy Corporation as the basis for the San Benito demon-
stration unit. These are shown in Table 6.
The grouped data for Runs 8, 9 and 10, for which
subsequent analyses are carried out are shown in Tables 7 to
9. This is the point at which this analysis departs from
that conducted for Runs 8 and 9- There, the next step was
to develop an optimum equation by correcting both equations
to the means of Run 8 and 9 variables. Here, the next step
will involve correcting to the Foster Wheeler design con-
ditions .
-------
TABLE 6
STANDARDISED OPERATING CONDITIONS
(FOSTER WHEELER DESIGN CRITERIA)
VARIABLE DESIGN VALUE
Bed Depth (cm) 91.4
Bed Temperature (*C) 910
Air Fuel Ratio (% Stoichiometric) 22.5
o
Water Input (m-Yhr steam) 0
Ca/S Mole Ratio (% Stoichiometric) 1.0
Cyclone Drain Temperature (*C) 50
Time Without Stone Addition (hr) 0
-------
TABLE 7
I
uo
GROUPED DATA FOR
MEAN
SHE
%
72.6
76.7
77.4
79.0
79.1
81 .9
83.0
BED DEPTH
MEAN
OF
VARIABLE
56. 4
64.6
75.7
85.9
94.0
103.4
112.9
(cm)
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
10
14
42
80
173
76
13
POLYNOMIAL FIT ANALYSIS (UNCORRECTED) FOR RUN 8
BED TEMPERATURE
MEAN MEAN
SRE OF
% VARIABLE
78.7 858
81.2 873-4
81.5 889
80.1 907
97.3 924
( -c)
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
2
68
245
80
13
AIR/FUEL RATIO
(% STOICHIOMETRIC)
MEAN MEAN
SRE OF
% VARIABLE
72.0 16.1
75.6 21.2
78.6 23.5
80.9 26.1
79.6 28.7
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
1
65
234
100
8
cont/ . . .
-------
TABLE 7 (Continued)
-tr
-t
WATER INPUT
(m3/hr STEAM)
MEAN
SHE
%
82.8
80.7
75.9
71.6
64.9
62.1
34.4
27.7
MEAN
OF
VARIABLE
5.7
14.3
24.9
34. 1
41.9
50. 1
68.2
71.5
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
141
162
44
31
21
1
3
5
Ca/S MOLE RATIO
MEAN
SRE
%
77.9
80.4
82.7
83. 1
82.3
77.3
MEAN
OF
VARIABLE
0.7
1.4
2.3
3.4
4.6
5.3
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
62
250
77
16
2
1
CYCLONE DRAIN
TEMPERATURE (°C)
MEAN
SRE
%
79. 1
76.6
77.6
81.5
80.7
80.5
80.4
MEAN
OF
VARIABLE
80
141
228
309
386
453
522
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
17
13
42
68
117
126
25
-------
TABLE 8
GROUPED DATA FOR
MEAN
SRE
68.0
71 . 1
71.9
78.0
75.5
77.7
80.6
BED DEPTH (
MEAN
OF
VARIABLE
58
66
75.3
84.9
95.2
104.5
114.5
cm)
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
2
8
27
51
74
11 1
171
POLYNOMIAL FIT ANALYSIS (UNCORRECTED ) FOR RUN 9
BED TEMPERATURE (°C) 0
MEAN
SRE
77.1
77.9
77.1
75.8
74.0
71.9
66.6
MEAN
OF
VARIABLE
871
893
909
929
948
968
989
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
1 1
70
175
97
84
28
6
MEAN
SRE
71 .2
74.6
77.3
77.2
78.8
80.2
77.0
AIR/FUEL RATIO
\ STOICHIOMETRIC)
MEAN
OF
VARIABLE
17.5
20.3
23.8
36.4
29.6
31.8
35.1
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
7
14
77
221
113
29
9
cont/..
-------
TABLE 8 (Continued)
WATER INPUT
(ni3/hr STEAM)
MEAN MEAN
SRE OF
% VARIABLE
80.1 0.7
75.9 14.4
73.2 23.6
71.1 35.2
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
373
43
48
6
Ca/S MOLE RATIO
MEAN
SRE
%
75.5
77.7
77.3
79.2
81.1
77.0
MEAN
OF
VARIABLE
0.5
1.4
2.2
3.4
4.2
5.1
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
202
197
45
19
5
3
CYCLONE DRAIN
TEMPERATURE (°C)
MEAN
SRE
*
69.6
73.8
74.5
76.0
78.0
78.9
79.3
80.8
MEAN
OF
VARIABLE
84
28
222
303
375
463
533
611
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
13
13
74
109
96
74
52
25
-------
TABLE 9
GROUPED DATA FOR
MEAN
SRE
71.7
i 71 .9
^ 75.6
i
75.2
77.0
77.5
79.9
78.9
BED DEPTH
MEAN
OF
VARIABLE
93.6
99.7
106.9
1 12.0
118.9
124.3
130.0
134.3
(cm)
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
26
42
31
29
21
30
10
3
POLYNOMIAL FIT ANALYSIS (UNCORRECTED)
BED
MEAN
SRE
76.1
74.1
75.2
75.1
75.2
72.5
TEMPERATURE
MEAN
OF
VARIABLE
369
891
908
927
951
962
CO
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
5
27
60
56
35
9
FOR RUN 10
AIR/FUEL RATIO
(% STOICHIOMETRIC)
MEAN
SRE
73.4
75.8
75.0
73.1
74.3
70.5
MEAN
OF
VARIABLE
20.0
22.5
25.6
27.7
31.1
34.1
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
22
91
48
28
2
1
cont/. . .
-------
TABLE 9 (Continued)
WATER INPUT CYCLONE DRAIN HOURS WITHOUT
(rn^/hr STEAM) Ca/S MOLE RATIO TEMPERATURE (-C) MAKE-UP
1
oo
I
MEAN MEAN NUMBER MEAN MEAN
SRE . OF OF DATA SRE OF
% VARIABLE POINTS % VARIABLE
75.3 2.0 175 73.9 0.2
73.7 10.3 8 76.3 1.5
71.2 25.6 3 76.8 2.1
71.9 37.3 1 81.6 3.1
67.1 15.9 1 75.8 1.1
66.1 51.1 1 77.5 5.2
81.1 6.6
NUMBER MEAN
OF DATA SRE
POINTS %
136 72.5
19 71.8
25 71.0
8 71.1
2 76.3
1 77.1
1 76.3
MEAN
OF
VARIABLE
89
112
217
301
380
116
521
NUMBER MEAN
OF DATA SRE
POINTS %
11 76
26 75
56 72
37 72
35 72
23 71
1 70
71
70
67
.1
.7
.9
.9
.7
.9
.1
.5
.0
.1
MEAN
OF
VARIABLE
0
10
18
25
32
39
16
53
60
66
.6
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
STONE
NUMBER
OF DATA
POINTS
129
9
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
-------
The % sulphur removal efficiencies shown for the
grouped data for one variable for one run are corrected for
the deviation of the mean value of the variable away from
the design condition. This is repeated for other variables
for the run, and for appropriate results from the other
runs. The method of calculation, and the correction factors
are shown in Table 10.
The corrected results were subjected to examination for
linearity using the POLYNOMINAL-FIT programme and optimum
equations derived for the three runs separately. Some
attempts were made to reconcile the equations for the three
sets of data for each variable in the sense that polynomials
of the same order could be used to describe the data fit.
This meant that in one or two instances, a small sacrifice
in precision was made to ensure a measure of homogeneity
between the result sets. In all instances, the loss of
precision was small.
Finally, a weighted mean average equation was produced
which best described all the data.
The equations are given in Table 11, and the resulting
curves are illustrated in Figs. 2-8. It will be noted that
the curves for the three runs show considerable divergence
compared with the Run 8 and 9 results previously reported
(Ref. 3). This is the consequence of correcting the results
to standard conditions away from the common means of the run
results.
An explanation is now possible for the apparently
anomalous coefficient for the effect of air/fuel ratio seen
for Run 10 during the linear regression stage. Reference to
Figure 2 shows that the curves of % sulphur removal effici-
ency vs air/fuel ratio pass through a maximum and that the
negative slope of the linear coefficient for Run 10 arises
simply because the data in this case lies generally to the
right of the maximum. It is nevertheless apparent from the
curves that in actual fact the three runs were very similar.
Also with regard to this figure, it has already been noted
that an air leak was found during Run 10 which may have led
to the air/fuel ratios being approximately 1y5 too lean. It
may be expected therefore that in reality, the Run 8 and 9
curves should be displaced somewhat towards the lower
air/fuel region and it is interesting to note that this
brings the three runs even closer together.
The optimum results for the "Added Water" curves show
Runs 9 and 10 with linear relationships. This arises from
the comparatively restricted range covered by the variable
in comparison with Run 8.
-------
TABLE 10
CORRECTIONS TO % SULPHUR REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
VALUES. RUNS 8, 9 and 10
CORRECTION FACTOR*
VARIABLE RUN 8 RUN 9 RUN 10
Bed Depth (cm) -3-37 -2.0 -3.4
Bed Temperature (*C) 0 +0.8 0
Air/Fuel Ratio (% Stoichiometric) +0.3 -1.7 +0.3
Added Water Vapour (m^/hr) +0.7 +1.1 +0.7
Ca/S Mole Ratio +0.2 -0.3 +0.2
Cyclone Drain Temperature *C -3-39 -5.2 -3-4
Hours without Stone Addition - _ + 1.5
* Correction = Coefficient for variable (design condition - run mean)
- 50 -
-------
TABLE 11
I
U1
POLYNOMIAL EQUATIONS FOR RUNS 8, 9 and 10
RUN 8
x2 x3
Bed Depth (cm) 0. 15
Bed Temperature (°C) 3.25 -18.41x10-**
Air/Fuel Ratio (% Stoichiometric) -26.75 1.28 -1.95x10-2
Added Water (m3/hr) 7.62x10~3 -1.06x10-2
Ca/S Mole Ratio 5.75 -0.92
Cyclone Drain Temperature (°C) 0.67x10-2
Hours without Stone Make-Up
Constant -1200.5
Standard Error 3.85
% Explained 87.3
RUN 9
x x2
0.17
1.65 -9. 32x10-**
1.81 -2.78x10-2
-0.29
2.72 -0.39
1.72x10-2
-701.8
3.87
67.1
cont/.
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
1
U1
1
Bed Depth (cm)
Bed Temperature (°C)
Air/Fuel Ratio (% Stoichiometric )
Added Water (m3/hr)
Ca/S Mole Ratio
Cyclone Drain Temperature (°C)
Hours without Stone Make-Up
Constant
Standard Error
% Explained
RUN 10
o
x x*-
0.18
0.75 -4.07x10-1
3.52 -7.18x10-2
-0.18
2.28
1.1x10-2
-0. 12
-328.7
3.90
76.2
X
0. 16
1.18
3.69
-0.21
3.79
1.3x10-2
-0.12
AVERAGE FOR ALL RUNS
x2 x3 x^
-8.38x10-4
-6.86x10-2
-1.33x10-2 4.75X10-11 -5.15x10-6
-0.56
-------
% SRE vs BED DEPTH (cm)
uo
I
82
80
78 -
1
AVERAGE
O RUN 8
• RUN 9
X RUN 10
70
90 110
BED DEPTH (cm)
130
150
FIG. 2.
-------
% SRE vs GASIFIER BED TEMPERATURE
i
ui
80
76
UJ
o:
CO
72
68
840
T
T
245
AVERAGE
o RUN 8
• RUN 9
X RUN 10
1
1
\
1
880 92O 960
BED TEMPERATURE (°C)
1000
FIG . 3
-------
% SRE vs AIR/FUEL RATIO
T
T
Ul
U1
UJ
o:
80
78
76
74
72
70
68
100
o
29
23
I
1
16
20
24 28
AIR / FUEL RATIO
32
36
FIG. 4.
-------
% SRE vs ADDED WATER VAPOUR (M3/HR
T
90
80
70
LJ
OC
60
50
40
30
I 1
AVERAGE
o RUN 8
• RUN 9
X RUN 10
I
I
I
I
I
0
10
2O 30 40 50 60
ADDED WATER { M3 VAPOUR/HR)
70
FIG. 5.
80
-------
% SRE vs Ca/S MOLE RATIO
—]
I
84
82
80
LJ
QL
C/> 78
76
74
72
T
T
77
250
• 3
136
AVERAGE
RUN 8
RUN 9
RUN 10
1
1
1
0
345
Ca/S MOLE RATIO
1
7
FIG.6
8
-------
% SRE vs CYCLONE DRAIN TEMPERATURE (°C)
00
I
80
78
76
74
LJ
o:
72
70
68
66
64
O
I
13
o
o o
126 25
.42
• 25
-- AVERAGE
O RUN 8
• RUN 9
X RUN 10
I
I
I
200 400 600
CYCLONE DRAIN TEMPERATURE (°C)
8OO
FIG .7.
-------
I
U1
V£>
79 h
0
% SRE vs HOURS WITHOUT STONE ADDITION
T 1 1 1 T
20 30 40 50 60
HOURS WITHOUT STONE ADDITION
70 80
FIG . 8.
-------
The overall equation was applied to the individual run
data. The results are compared to the optimum polynomial
equations and the initial linear regression equations
applied to their respective individual runs in Table 12.
As would be expected there is a loss of precision when
applying the average equation to the individual runs compared
to when the run optimum equation is used. However, this
loss of precision is comparatively minor compared to the
advantage of having available a single predictor for future
heavy fuel oil runs.
Evaluation of Other Run 10 Variables
After allowing for the contribution of the significant
variables, a random error, attributable to experimental
error, remains associated with the differences between
measured and predicted sulphur removal efficiency. Part of
this error may be associated with variables not included in
the regression equations, and a number of potential process
parameters were investigated for runs 8 and 9.
This evaluation has been extended to include the
results from Run 10 and additional variables from the three
runs. The analysis was concluded using the residual error
data, and again the results were averaged into boxes across
the range of the variable.
Results are presented in Figures 8 to 13 and it is
readily apparent that there is no systematic trend which
would indicate a correlation with the residual error.
It was thus confirmed that bed sulphur, carbon, sulphate
and fines (surface area) levels showed no strong effect on
sulphur removal performance. A similar conclusion may be
drawn for air rate and fuel rate into the gasifier.
Application of the General Equation to Bitumen
Towards the end of Run 10, a period of operation on
Bitumen was successfully completed showing that both gas-
ification and regeneration could be carried out continuously
with fuels significantly different in chemical composition
and physical characteristics from the normal heavy fuel oil
feed. Good desulphurisation was generally observed through-
out.
- 60 -
-------
TABLE 12
OVERALL EQUATION APPLIED TO INDIVIDUAL RUNS
EQUATION RUN 8 RUN 9 RUN 10
OVERALL
Standard Error
% Explained
Constant*
INDIVIDUAL
Standard Error
% Explained
Constant
LINEAR
Standard Error
% Explained
Constant
4.
83.
-642.
3.
87.
-1200.
3.
86.
71.
41
5
7
85
3
5
94
8
8
4.
63
-644.
3.
67.
-704.
4.
64.
64.
14
6
87
4
8
06
5
5
4
66
-645
3
76
-328
4
74
58
.66
.9
.90
.2
.7
.13
. 1
.4
* Note, weighted mean value of constant = -645.0
- 61 -
-------
% SRE (RESIDUAL ERROR) vs BED CARBON (WT%)
3
i
I
0
_ |
or
o
CC
or ,
UJ ~-J
<7> C
I UJ
tc
UJ -7
o:
-------
% SRE(RESIDUAL ERROR) vs BED SULPHUR (WT%)
«
6
4
en
O
cr
o: 2
Lul
1
_J
i o
uo V)
i LU
oc
w-2
a:
CO
-S
0 -4
-6
T 1 - 1 1 Ift
x 5
4 **
0 RUN 8
• RUN 9
X RUN 10
—
33
4r? i 25
O Tlti O
134 O5 X
87 >?
039
6 I74X^ *52 59X »7
9 13 10° 22 14
°° v>* X*
30 (4
°9
•
2 •
2
O3
1 1 1 i 1
0 2 4, 6^. 8 10 12
BED SULPHUR (WT %)
FIG.10
-------
% SRE (RESIDUAL ERROR) vs BED SULPHATE (WT%)
or
o
o:
tr.
LJ
0
00
LJ
-2
LJ
-------
% SRE (RESIDUAL ERROR) vs % BED FINES (-6OOJU)
4
3
(T
O
tr
a: 2
UJ
_i
— h
O 1
ui uj
. a:
UJ °
cc
0)
>s
*-l
_2
_3
I 1 1 1 1 I 1
0 RUN 8
26
2 • • RUN 9
0
4 x RUN 10
o
39
38 •
0 24
9
— _
23
£
31
o
17
63 23 0 7
13 39 6x3 x I
x x o
13
53 »2 *0* 50 X8 35 *6 ^
«io
X
— Sfi ° -
oo pp -
22 33
• o
27
»I3I
1 i 1 1 1 1 1
10 14 18 22 26 30 34
% BED FINES (-600/J )
FIG.12.
-------
% SRE RESIDUAL ERROR) vs GASIFIER AIR RATE(m3/hr)
J I
a:
o
a:
a:
LJ
LJ
LJ
or
0|3
o
37
37
O
58
O
33
O
I
.54
43
103
-X -
X74
34
O
2
65
X
86
69
X
•
97
6
X
101
66
-6
O
I
O RUN 8
• RUN 9
X RUN 10
I
I
I
250
300
350 400
GASIFIER AIR RATE (m3/hr)
450
500
FIG. 13.
-------
% SRE (RESIDUAL ERROR) vs FUEL RATE (Kg/Hr)
a:
o
a:
tr
Ixl
o o
(/>
LU
a:
iu-2
o:
CO
-4
-6
i
x
T
T
T
T
o RUN 8
• RUN 9
X RUN 10
81
37
O
95
X
46
6o6
12
O
55
X
42
9
l-o
100
13
I
O
31
177
X
6
98
X
59
38
O
9
120
1
140 160
FUEL (Kg/Hr)
II
X
3
180
21
200
FIG.14.
-------
A total of 37 hours operation was achieved with complete
data available for seventeen hours. However, due to a major
blockage in an inadequately heated filter, and the very
coarse pump flow indication, it was not possible to obtain a
direct measurement of the fuel flow rate throughout this
period. Fortunately, this state of affairs was known
immediately prior to changing to the bitumen fuel and the
conditions already established for heavy fuel oil in the
system could be used as a basis for back calculating the
vacuum bottoms fuel flow from the stack gas analysis.
The results of the application of the average equation
developed for heavy fuel oil to bitumen are summarised in
Table 13. Overall, excellent prediction is achieved by the
correlation equation, with the average predicted sulphur
removal being only 0.6% lower than the measured value.
However, a trend can be observed that the equation initially
overpredicts performance by approximately 10$ and later
consistently underpredicts by approximately 3%•
The initial results would not normally be included in
the analysis since these represent the first results immedi-
ately after restart from a sulphated bed and thus are
untypical of normal performance, certainly over the first
three hours whilst a reasonable sulphur inventory is accumu-
lated on the lime bed. Thus, it would appear that the
equation overpredicts the sulphur removal efficiency in
general for this fuel. However, it must be borne in mind
that additional uncertanities have been introduced into
these results by having to calculate the fuel flow and hence
the sulphur input into the system, from the stack gas
analysis. Under these circumstances, the results are
accepted as indicating that the performance of the pilot
plant on oil based fuels other than heavy fuel oil can be
predicted reasonably accurately using the fuel oil equation.
Application of the General Equation to Runs 6 and 7 Data
It was intended at the outset that the equation devel-
oped would be applied to Runs 6 and 7 to see whether an
improvement in the prediction of % sulphur removal efficiency,
particularly for Run 6 would occur. Unfortunately, this
could not be carried out using the individual hourly data
sets as had been intended originally as it was found that
the necessary data files had been erased from the computer
memory and a very considerable time would be needed to
re-insert the original information.
- 68 -
-------
TABLE 13
APPLICATION OF AVERAGE REGRESSION EQUATION TO TJ 102
MEDIUM VACUUM BOTTOMS (BITUMEN)
Time
(D.H.)
Measured
% SRE
Predicted
% SRE
Difference
%
20.
21 .
21.
21 .
21 .
21.
21,
21 ,
21 ,
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
2330
0030
0130
0230
0330
0430
0530
0630
0730
0830
0930
,1530
. 1630
.1730
, 1820
,1930
,2030
MEAN
78.7
76.7
71.9
69.2
65.7
62.0
59.9
59.4
59.5
59.3
63.1
58.6
62.0
63.7
64.0
60.9
58.8
64.3
67.9
66.6
66.0
65,
62,
64,
64,
63,
66,
62.4
67.4
63,
65,
64.0
64,
64
64.8
64.9
10.8
10.1
5.9
4.0
3.2
-2.4
-4.4
-3.0
-3.6
-7.4
-4.3
-4.5
-3.6
-0.3
-0.6
-3.8
-6.0
-0.6
- 69 -
-------
Thus, whilst a complete re-working of the data for the
earlier runs using the individual hourly results is not
possible at this time, an assessment of some of the data is
possible since averaged results over 10 hour periods have
been presented previously (Ref. 2). These were examined
originally in the light of the regression equation developed
for Runs 8 and 9 only, when a reasonably good prediction of
the Run 7 results were obtained but the results for Run 6
were badly underpredicted (Ref. 3). It was necessary to
take into account an estimate of the cyclone drain temper-
ature variable in order to carry out this analysis and this
has been included here also. The cyclone temperature value
used as a first approximation is the weighted mean of the
average value observed during Runs 8, 9 and 10, viz. 3^6°C.
The time variable which was established during Run 10
is of no consequence for Runs 6 and 7 since fresh stone was
being added continuously throughout the periods for which
the grouped data are available.
A correction can be made for the water added via the
flue gas recycle during Runs 6 and 7 but this is relatively
small, ranging between 0 and approximately -1.1/6 on the
predicted sulphur removal efficiency.
Taking these corrections into account, predicted
results for Runs 6 and 7 are shown in Table 14. A reason-
ably good prediction of the Run 7 results is observed, but
by comparison, Run 6 results are underpredicted on average
by approximately 6%. This is a very considerable improvement
over the previous results (Ref 3) in which the difference
values for Runs 6 and 7 were 13.8/6 and 3-2/6 respectively.
Results of Experiments to Gasify Solid Fuel
Following the period of gasification on the bitumen the
final experiment planned for Run 10 was to examine the
feasibility of coal gasification. The basic objectives were
to establish that coal could be fed successfully into the
gasifier and to establish whether the resulting gas quality
would enable a flame to be maintained in the boiler.
Illinois No. 6 was used for this experiment.
A very simple coal feed system consisting of a manually
replenished lock hopper was used with the coal being injected
pneumatically via the flue gas recycle tuyere inserted
through the warm-up burner assembly. In the event, the coal
feed rate proved to be very erratic and the coal tended to
be delivered into the gasifier at extremely high rates on
occasions, resulting in the emission of smoke from the exit
- 70 -
-------
TABLE 14
PREDICTION OF AVERAGED % SULPHUR REMOVAL EFFICIENCY FOR
RUNS 6 AND 7 USING OVERALL RUN 8, 9 AND 10 REGRESSION EQUATION
Run No.
6
MEAN
Time of First
Reading (D.H. )
2.0830
3.0430
6.2230
8.0430
9-0030
11.0630
12.2030
15.1330
16.1930
19.1730
Actual
% SRE
75.5
80.0
80.0
71.5
71.5
84.0
82.0
82.0
71.5
78.5
77.7
Predicted*
% SRE
71.3
73.5
73.5
68.8
70.2
76.0
72.7
72.8
71.1
70.1
72.0
Difference
4.2
6.5
6.5
2.7
1.3
8.0
9.3
9.2
0.4
7-4
5.7
7 4.0630
5-0230
6. 1830
7. 1430
9.2130
11.0930
13.0030
13.1530
14.1630
MEAN
77.5
80.0
67.5
67.5
70.0
78.0
81.0
80.0
77.0
75.4
72.9
73.3
70.7
71.9
72.8
75-2
77.9
73.5
73.2
73.5
4.6
6.7
-3.2
-4.4
-2.8
2.8
3.1
6.5
3.8
1.9
Corrected for cyclone temperature and flue gas recycle
water variables
- 71 -
-------
stack. A variety of coal particle size ranges were used,
viz. below 800 JLL, below 1400 p and 1400 ^ up to 3,200 ju
(1/8 inch). Similar feed control difficulties were observed
for all size ranges.
The coal feed was initiated and simultaneously the
bitumen feed rate was cut down to compensate and to maintain
approximately similar gasifier stoichiometry to the operation
on bitumen alone. The operation was repeated, successively
reducing the proportion of bitumen until it represented only
approximately 50% of the normal rate. At this point, it was
estimated that an average rate of 100 kg/hr of Illinois No.
6 was being supplied to the gasifier.
A flame was maintained throughout in the boiler but
there were considerable fluctuations in operating conditions,
particularly gasifier temperature, boiler oxygen, and SC>2
levels. No attempt was made to initiate and maintain
regenerator performance.
The conclusions drawn from this experiment were that
coal gasification could be achieved and that the gas quality
would be adequate to maintain combustion in the boiler.
However, it was considered essential that a proper coal feed
system be developed in order to adequately control the feed
rate before it would be possible to operate without any
supplementary liquid fuel.
Experiments on Location of Fuel Injection
A number of experiments were planned on injection of
heavy fuel oil at different locations in the gasifier bed,
to establish whether a single fuel injector would provide
the necessary fuel distribution in the bed, and whether the
re-designed distributor incorporating a central pit would
eliminate tip burning of fuel oil injectors and would allow
injectors to be changed whilst maintaining gasification.
Two separate access points into the distributor pit were
available, one being a hole through the gasifier wall and
through the pit wall into the pit and the second having a
"V" channel through the distributor pit wall.
Early operation during the run was carried out with
fuel oil being injected at two locations on opposite sides
of the gasifier, 6.5 cms above the distributor. On day 15 at
03.30 injection via one pit injector was initiated and the
side injectors taken out of service completely. The effect
on sulphur removal efficiency and other operating parameters
is shown in Table 15. Within experimental error, no change
- 72 -
-------
Table 15
EFFECT OF FUEL INJECTOR POSITION
ON SULPHUR REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
Fuel Injection
Location
Side, two
injectors
Distributor Pit,
one injector
Time
D.H.
14.2330
15.0030
15.0130
15.0230
15.0330
15.0430
15.0530
15.0630
% SHE
71 .7
71 .0
70.4
70.5
69.8
71.3
71.9
71.3
Gasifier Bed
Temperature "C
921
924
925
932
937
920
928
921
- 73 -
-------
in performance could be considered to have occurred, and the
remainder of the run was completed with a single injection
point into the distributor pit.
Removal and reinsertion of the pit injectors while
gasifying was found to be easy, both via the hole through
the refractory wall and distributor, and also through the
"V" channel in the distributor.
Experiments on Injection of Steam
Steam was injected into the gasifier on two occasions.
Results from the first period were rejected because of
difficulties with the steam metering equipment. The second
period occurred between D.H. 16.0030 and 16.1030 when
approximately 40 m^/hour of steam was injected in two
separate periods. Flue gas recycle rate was reduced
to compensate for the steam injection. Average results were
tabulated in Table 16.
It is readily apparent that the addition of steam has a
deleterious effect on the sulphur removal performance and
that recovery is rapid when steam injection is stopped.
Also it appears that the effect is more pronounced when
running at low air fuel ratios i.e. rich, in the gasifier,
and that under these conditions recovery when steam injection
is stopped is not as rapid.
Experiments on Burn Back of Ducts and Cyclones
During the normal operation of the gasifier, carbon and
condensed tars accumulate in the ducts and cyclones leading
from the gasifier through the cyclones into the boiler. As
a consequence, the gasifier top space pressure increases and
removal of the deposits becomes necessary.
The normal procedure is to burn out the ducts from the
entry in the gasifier through into the boiler and procedures
are available for conducting this operation. Such a burn
out was carried out successfully during run 10 on days
4-5.
Further tests were conducted during Run 10 to establish
whether it would be possible to clear the ducts by a burn
back procedure, initiating the combustion at the boiler
burner end and burning the deposits out through the cyclones
and through into the gasifier. This test was carried out on
day 19.
-------
Table 16
EFFECT OF STEAM INJECTION ON PERFORMANCE
Average steam A/F Ratio Average
Period (D.H.) input (m-yhr) % Stoichiometric % SHE
15.1930 to 15.2330 9.4 26.7 64.8
16.0030 to 16.0430 37-7 25.5 58.5
16.0530 to 16.0630 0 23.2 70.4
16.0730 to 16.1030 40.2 22.1 57.3
16.1130 to 16.1430 0 22.0 63-4
- 75 -
-------
The initial part of the burn out through the ducts as
far as the cyclones was completed successfully. However,
the gas flow through the cyclones in the reverse direction
was unable to attack the deposits in the cyclone itself and
consequently this approach had to be considered to be
unsuccessful. The test was terminated and the normal burn
out procedure instituted and the ducts and cyclones cleared
satisfactorily.
Attempts were made also to prevent or limit the deposi-
tion of carbon and tars in the ducts by providing air jets
adjacent to the walls at the entry to one of the main
gasifier cyclones. It was expected that a small flow of air
along the wall would oxidise any deposits which tended to
form. In the event, these jets proved to be completely
unsuccessful and did not prevent the accumulation of deposits,
and the tests were terminated during the early part of the
run before day 14.
Experiments on Tuyere Injection of Flue Gas
Provision is available to use flue gas recycle through
the gasifier plenum in order to control bed temperature.
The flue gas recycle stream has to be cleaned in order to
remove small quantities of particulates, and also provision
has to be made for continuous recirculation of flue gas by-
passing the gasifier plenum in order to prevent condensation
in the flue gas recycle system. These precautions are
necessary to avoid blocking the air nozzles in the gasifier
distributor with damp lime particulates.
In would be an obvious advantage if flue gas could be
injected directly into the gasifier bed as this would
eliminate the need for clean-up. During Run 10, flue gas
was injected directly into the gasifier bed via a tuyere
inserted through the warm-up burner assembly. The experi-
ments were carried out during days 20 and 21 whilst operating
on bitumen. Whilst a direct comparison of tuyere versus
plenum injection of flue gas was not possible due to the
re-routing of pipework necessary to change the injection
location, bed temperature control was excellent using the
tuyere system and no adverse efects could be observed, for
example, poor temperature distribution in the gasifier bed
or increased fines carry over into the cyclones. It was
concluded that the system performed equally efficiently as
when plenum injection of flue gas was used but that the
tuyere system offered the advantage of being less critical
to particle and moisture loading of the flue gas.
- 76 -
-------
Cooling Rate of Gasifier After Shut-down
With the improved insulation of the new unit, a check
was made to establish the cooling rate of the gasifier bed
at the end of Run 10.
Initially the gasifier bed was at 880°C with a bed
depth of 91 cm (36 inch). It can be seen from Fig. 15 that
it takes more than 24 hours for the bed to cool to 620°C
which is the minimum temperature at which it can be reheated
using fuel oil, assuming that it is in a sulphated state.
Should the shut-down be made with a sulphided bed which
retains its carbon coating on the lime, a restart from
a lower temperature would be possible. This has not been
investigated and therefore it is not recommended that the
gasifier bed should be allowed to drop below 620°C if a
reliable restart is desired.
However, the time available before a reheat is necessary
is sufficient for safe overnight shut-down of the gasifier
and thus operation on a daily basis, becomes possible. This
offers advantages for commissioning equipment and for
running short experiments using the continuous gasifier
without requiring the setting up of shift operations.
Continuous operation will however still be essential for
long term testing under fully lined out conditions.
MATERIAL BALANCES
Results have been reported previously on the fate of
trace elements present in the fuel oil feed to the CAFB
gasifier during periods when fresh limestone was added
continuously to the gasifier (Refs. 2, 3). The stable
operation of the pilot unit during Run 10 between days 13
and 16 presented an opportunity to investigate bed attrition
and trace element retention whilst no fresh limestone was
being added, and enabled the effect of bed age to be taken
into account. It is of obvious interest whether trace
elements continue to be captured by the aged bed material or
whether release into the atmosphere increases progressively
with time. Capture of trace elements minimises pollution,
reduces potential corrosion problems in the boiler due
mainly to sodium and vanadium, and the efficient capture of
certain elements present in high concentration, such as
vanadium, could provide an economically attractive route to
recovery of valuable material.
- 77 -
-------
COOLING CURVE FOR GASIFIER BED AFTER SHUTDOWN
900-
00
I
O
8
16
32 40 48
TIME (MRS)
56
64
72
80
FIG . 15.
-------
Samples of spent stone were removed from the pilot unit
at six hourly intervals throughout the period when no fresh
limestone could be added. Due to the difficulty and expense
of analysing for trace elements, three sets of samples were
selected for evaluation. These were at the beginning of the
period, after 24 hours operation, and at the end after 68
hours without stone feed. Trace element levels on those
samples were established using atomic absorbtion, in addition
to the usual analysis for total sulphur, carbon, sulphate
sulphur and acid insolubles. Preliminary runs were carried
out to establish those elements for which the level present
could be measured with reasonable precision.
Calculation of mass balances for individual trace
elements present in heavy fuel oil is affected by two major
factors. Firstly, there are the inaccuracies present due to
the difficulty of measuring the trace element level in the
fuel, the fresh limestone feed if present, and the stone
samples extracted from the system. Secondly, the stone
balance itself may not close, in which case the individual
elemental balances cannot be established regardless of the
precision of the analytical data.
Thus, before attempting trace element balances, checks
were made to establish how well the stone and sulphur
balances approached closure.
Limestone and Sulphur Balances
Reference to Table C-6, Appendix C gives the stone and
sulphur balances on an hourly basis. These have been
established from records of material added to and removed
from the system, and in the case of sulphur, including
analysis of gas streams from the boiler and regenerator and
the changes in sulphur levels observed on the lime samples
removed. They do not include the changes in the gross
quantity of stone and sulphur present in the gasifier and
regenerator arising from changes in bed depth. Thus, all
that is needed to complete the stone and sulphur balances is
to supplement the information provided in Table C-6, Appendix
C, with the changes in the gasifier and regenerator stone
and sulphur inventories. This information is given in Table
17 for the stone balance, and Table 18 for the sulphur
balance. These are within the anticipated precision of the
measurements of the stone and sulphur levels and sampling
errors associated with stone removals and thus an evaluation
of trace element balances will not be significantly affected
by errors associated with the stone balance.
- 79 -
-------
TABLE 17
STONE BALANCE FOR PERIOD D.H. 1 3.2330-16.1800
TIME (D.H.)
Start 13-2330
14.2330
STONE*
IN-PUT (kg)
407. 1
349.8
GASIFIER +
REGENERATOR BED
INVENTORY (kg)
479
414.5
END
16. 1800
249.2
325.5
oo
o
GAIN (kg)
13.2330-14.2330
13.2320-16.1800
-57.3
-157.9
-64.5
-153.5
NET GAIN (kg)
13.2330-14.2330
13.2330-16.1800
7.2
-4.4
* From Appendix C, Table C-6
-------
TABLE 18
i
CO
SULPHUR BALANCE FOR PERIOD D.H. 1 3 .2330-16 . 1800
TIME (D.H.)
START 13.2330
14.2330
END 16.1800
GAIN (kg)
13.2330-14.2330
13.2330-16. 1800
NET GAIN (kg)
13-2330-14.2330
13.2330-16.1800
TOTAL SULPHUR ADDED
GASIFIER + REGENERATOR SULPHUR, kg
GASIFIER REGENERATOR
SULPHUR* BED SULPHUR BED SULPHUR
IN-OUT, kg (kg) (wt$) (kg) (wt*)
2.602 417.3 2.88 61.6 2.03
2.818 358.3 3-49 56.4 3-17
2.832 283.0 4.26 42.8 3.97
-0.216
-0.23
0.804 (1$)
0.250 (0.15?)
(kg) D.H. 13.2330-14.2330 = 3158.8 x 0.256 =
TOTAL
BED SULPHUR
(kg)
13.27
14.29
13.75
1 .02
0.48
80.86
(= Fuel (kg) x wt % sulphur) D.H. 13.2330-16.1800 = 8438.4 x 0.256 = 216.02
* From Appendix C Table C-6
-------
Before proceeding with the evaluation of the trace
element balances, it is useful to consider the rate at which
stone attrition proceeds in the absence of fresh stone make
up.
Bed Attrition
The stone balance information cannot be used directly
to establish the attrition rate since it includes material
deliberately removed from the gasifier and regenerator beds
as samples. Also, scrutiny of the stone removal records,
Appendix C Table C-7 shows that a relatively large quantity
of stone was removed from the gasifier plenum during this
period which again should not be included in the calculation.
Thus, the "total stone" data in Table 19 includes the weight
of bed material lost due to sampling, having estimated a
normal stone sample removal from the gasifier at D.H.
16.1700.
The overall attrition rate throughout the period was
0.45 kg/hr/100 kg bed material and occurred almost entirely
from the gasifier bed.
It is possible to calculate the attrition rate for the
24 hour period immediately prior to the shut down of the
stone feed system. During this period, fresh limestone was
being added at an average rate of 2.1 molar and the attrition
rate was found to be 1.40 kg/hr./100 kg bed inventory. The
bed velocity during this period was 1.52 m/sec. which is
similar to that for the period when no stone was added. The
increase in solids escaping from the bed as the result of
adding fresh material is thus very pronounced.
Taking periods of 24 hours from the start of the period
(D.H. 13-2330) the rate of attrition can be seen to be
related to the bed velocity, the relationship being linear
over the range and of the form
Bed Loss/hr/100 kg = 0.659 Bed Velocity (m/sec) - 0.689
with a correlation coefficient of 0.97.
It can be seen also from Table 19 that there is a
decrease in the quantity of fines present in the gasifier
bed though this does not account for the total loss of bed
material observed. The explanation lies in the continuous
generation of fines in the bed. Larger particles contin-
uously break down to produce fines which leave the bed and
- 82 -
-------
TABLE 19
LIME ATTRITION RATE
1
CD
UJ
>
Time
(Day Hour)
Start (13.2330)
13.2330-11.2330
11.2330-15.2330
15.7330-16.1830
Overall
Bed
Duration Depth
(hr) (m)
0 1.30
21 1.13
21 0.9?
20 0.91
68
Total (1)
Limestone
(kg)
179
122
368
351.0
-
Loss
(kg)
57.0
51.0
17.0
128.0
Rate (2)
of Loss
(kg/hr)
2.1
2.3
0.9
1.88
Average Loss (2)
(kg/hr /I 00 kg Bed)
0.53
0.57
0.23
0.15(3)
Average
Bed Velocity
(m/sec.)
1.77
1.96
1.13
1.73
Gaaifier
Bed fines
wt* «60Qu)
30.5
27.5
25.1
21.6
_
(1) Gasifier + Regenerator bed + samples removed
(2) Based on mean bed limestone for beginning and end of period
(3) 0.12 kg/hr/100 kg bed/m2
-------
the fines levels measured in no way provide an estimate of
the amount which has been removed in the interval between
sampling. The gradual decrease in fines level is indicative
only of the increasing resistance of the stone particles
remaining in the bed to abrasion and attrition.
Trace Element Balances
The levels measured by atomic absorbtion techniques for
a number of trace elements in the fuel oil feed, and stone
samples taken during the period when no fresh limestone was
added are shown in Table 20. As stated above, full sets
of samples were analysed after 24 hours, and 68 hours
operation.
In the case of heavy fuel oil, some elements such as
chromium and cadmium were present at levels too low to be
measured accurately. For the purpose of the balance calcu-
lations, the maximum level of detection has been taken. For
a particular element, the % recovery has been calculated
as:
(Gasifier + Regenerator) Final Inventory (kg)
+ Sample Inventory (kg) x 100$
(Gasifier + Regenerator)Initial Inventory(kg)
+ Weight supplied via Fuel (kg)
Thus, when the weight of the element in question provided by
the fuel is over estimated by taking the maximum detection
level, e.g. for chromium, the % recovery is under-estimated.
Table 21 shows the recovery % for the trace elements
which could be measured with reasonable precision.
It is readily apparent that most elements are recovered
to a lesser extent as the bed age increases. Exceptions are
silicon and aluminium. In both cases, the level observed in
the fuel oil is very low compared to the level present on
the limestone itself, and under these circumstances the
calculations are open to greater error because of the
difficulty of measuring small differences in level on the
stone samples, when the background level is comparatively
high.
From the results, it is evident that both sodium and
potassium, being relatively volatile, are not retained to
any great extent on the recovered stone samples and the un-
recovered material is assumed to leave the system via the
fine material present in the stack gases. This is supported
-------
TABLE 20
00
I
ELEMENTAL ANALYSIS OF FUEL OIL AND LIMESTONE SAMPLES
SAMPLE
SOURCE
SODIUM ppm
IRON ppm
NICKEL ppm
VANADIUM %
POTASSIUM ppm
MAGNESIUM % (1)
CALCIUM $ (2)
SILICON % (3)
ALUMINIUM % (4)
MANGANESE % (5)
LEAD ppm
CHROMIUM ppm
CADMIUM ppm
(1) As MgO; (2)
• ppm
LIME-
STONE
(CALCINED)
50
486
77
67*
42
0.8?
96.4
1.84
0.50
0.017
75
7
13
Aa CaO;
HEAVY
FUEL
OIL
17
27
42
338»
3
6»
21»
<3«
2.
<2
1
<2
<1
(3) As
GAS.
BED
57
1472
376
0.38
23
0.89
90.2
0.9
5* 0.6
0.013
68
47
11
Si02; (4)
REGEN.
BED
166
1115
233
0.23
47
0.92
91.8
0.8
0.8
0.013
69
33
1 1
As A1203;
D.H. 13
GAS.
CYC.
57
1094
352
0.37
9
0.84
91.8
0.8
0.8
0.016
63
152
10
(5) As
-2330
BOILER
BACK
112
943
290
0.22
17
0.84
85.3
0.8
0.6
0.012
57
30
10
Mn203
STACK
CYC.
890
1550
430
0.33
319
0.72
79.1
0.6
0.6
0.017
90
25
10
REGEN.
CYC.
321
1212
226
0.13
80
0.69
81.8
0.8
0.6
0.018
83
7
12
cont/ ....
-------
TABLE 20 (Continued)
I
CO
SAMPLE
SOURCE
SODIUM ppm
IRON ppm
NICKEL ppm
VANADIUM %
POTASSIUM ppm
MAGNESIUM % ( 1 )
CALCIUM % (2)
SILICON % (3)
ALUMINIUM % (4)
MANGANESE % (5)
LEAD ppm
CHROMIUM ppm
CADMIUM ppm
D.H. 14.2330
GAS.
BED
39
1203
490
0.63
7
0.89
88.3
0.9
0.6
0.014
63
42
11
REGEN.
BED
48
1180
424
0.43
7
0.89
89.4
0.8
0.7
0.013
63
46
11
GAS.
CYC.
55
1045
378
0.40
3
0.84
85.0
1.3
0.8
0.017
70
39
10
BOILER
BACK
111
1010
374
0.29
10
0.29
85.7
1.5
0.9
0.012
64
33
10
STACK
CYC.
1600
1521
716
0.60
125
0.58
63.5
1.1
0.4
0.015
102
29
8
REGEN.
CYC.
210
1436
492
0.47
12
0.72
79.7
1.2
0.5
0.017
79
31
9
(1) As MgO; (2) As CaO; (3) As Si02; (4) As A1203; (5) As Mn203
cont/ . . . ,
-------
TABLE 20 (Continued)
00
SAMPLE
SOURCE
SODIUM ppm
IRON ppm
NICKEL ppm
VANADIUM %
POTASSIUM ppm
MAGNESIUM $ (1)
CALCIUM % (2)
SILICON % (3)
ALUMINIUM % (4)
MANGANESE % (5)
LEAD ppm
CHROMIUM ppm
CADMIUM ppm
D.H. 16.1800
GAS.
BED
32
1403
583
0.64
<1
0.86
91.5
1.3
0.6
0.013
68
40
10
REGEN.
BED
104
1159
399
0.48
7
0.77
89.9
1.7
1.2
0.011
62
35
10
GAS.
CYC.
52
1644
548
0.63
2
0.86
86.0
1.5
0.9
0.016
62
195
10
BOILER
BACK
137
1221
556
0.46
15
0.77
80.8
1.6
0.6
0.016
63
34
10
STACK
CYC.
1460
1175
579
0.55
50
0.34
35.3
1.1
0.4
0.012
57
24
5
REGEN.
CYC.
1050
1605
870
0.67
59
0.71
77.3
1.3
0.4
0.023
87
34
9
(1) As MgO; (2) As CaO; (3) As Si02; (4) As A1203; (5) As Mn203
-------
TABLE 21
TRACE ELEMENT BALANCES
% Recovered
Sodium
Potassium
Iron
Nickel
Vanadium
Magnesium (as MgO)
Silicon (as SiC>2)
Aluminium (as
Manganese (as
Lead
Chromium
Cadmium
24 hours
39.0
66.7
79.2
78.2
100.7
101.2
105.3 (min)
104.5
102.3 (min)
103.0
73.0 (min)
59.9 (min)
68 hours
22.3
37.4
78.0
53.0
64.2
88.6
156.6 (min)
123.8
89.3 (min)
97.3
61.4 (min)
37.8 (min)
- 88 -
-------
by the observation that these elements tend to be concen-
trated on the fine particles which are recovered at the
boiler cyclone since it can be inferred that the still finer
material which will not be captured will contain a higher
concentration of these elements. Confirmation is available
from the measurements conducted by GCA on stack emissions
during the run (8) when up to 0.435? wt of sodium was found
on the stack solids emitted. Similar trends are observed
for potassium.
Enrichment factors have been calculated for the trace
elements, as the ratio of the concentration of the element
detected on the stone sample to the level observed on the
original limestone feed (calcined). These are shown in
Table 22.
It is interesting to note that for sodium, there is a
trend for the concentration on the finer material (e.g.,
stack cyclone, regenerator cyclone) to increase throughout
the period. The reason for this is undoubtedly the continued
generation of fresh active surface for capture by fines
generation due to abrasion processes occurring in the
fluidised beds of the gasifier and regenerator. The gradual
diminution in the enrichment factor for the gasifier bed is
unexpected and is possible only if the active sites generated
by particle breakdown become occupied with more stable
species when competition occurs for these sites.
Similar results apply to potassium also, except that
the capture by fines also decreases suggesting that other
trace elements are preferentially captured.
One of these elements may in fact be vanadium which is
the major trace element present in the heavy fuel oil. Over
the 24 hour period, all the vanadium was accounted for even
without fresh stone addition. Even under these conditions,
the concentration reached only 0.63% and thereafter no
further increase was observed on the bed material, though
the concentration on the fines continued to increase.
Vanadium is also detected on the fines leaving the system
via the stack, and it is suspected that this increased only
after at least 24 hours from the start of the period when no
fresh stone was added. It appears from these results that
concentrations on the bed material are unlikely to exceed
approximately 0.6-0.7 wt % and the commercial exploitation
of spent gasifier stone for vanadium recovery may be
economically unattractive as a consequence.
- 89 -
-------
TABLE 22
o
I
TRACE ELEMENT
SAMPLE
SOURCE
SODIUM
IRON
NICKEL
VANADIUM
POTASSIUM
MAGNESIUM
ALUMINIUM
MANGANESE
LEAD
CHROMIUM
CADMIUM
GAS.
BED
1 . 1
3.0
4.9
56.7
0.55
1 .0
1 .2
0.8
0.9
6.7
0.8
REGEN.
BED
2.3
2.3
3.0
34.3
1 . 1
1 . 1
1.6
0.8
0.9
4.7
0.8
ENRICHMENT FACTORS
D.H.
GAS.
CYC.
1. 1
2.3
4.6
55.2
0.21
1 .0
1.6
0.9
0.8
21 .7
0.8
13.2330
BOILER
BACK
2.2
1.9
3.8
32.8
1. 1
1.0
1 .2
0.7
0.8
4.3
0.8
STACK
CYC.
19.8
3.2
5.6
49.3
7.6
0.8
1 .2
1 .0
1 .2
3.6
0.8
REGEN.
CYC.
6.4
2.5
2.9
19.4
1.9
0.8
1 .2
1 . 1
1. 1
1 .0
1 .0
cont/
-------
TABLE 22 (Continued)
i
VO
SAMPLE
SOURCE
SODIUM
IRON
NICKEL
VANADIUM
POTASSIUM
MAGNESIUM
ALUMINIUM
MANGANESE
LEAD
CHROMIUM
CADMIUM
GAS.
BED
0.8
2.5
6.4
94.0
0. 17
1.0
1.2
0.8
0.8
6.0
0.8
REGEN.
BED
1.0
2.4
5.5
64.2
0. 17
1. 1
1.4
0.8
0.8
6.6
0.8
D.H. '
GAS.
CYC.
1.1
2.2
4.9
59.7
0.07
1.0
1.6
1.0
0.9
5.6
0.8
14.2320
BOILER
BACK
2.2
2.1
4.9
43.3
0.24
1.0
1.8
0.7
0.8
4.7
0.8
STACK
CYC.
32.0
3.1
9.3
89.6
3.0
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.4
4.1
0.8
REGEN.
CYC.
4.2
3.0
6.4
70.1
0.29
0.8
1.0
1.0
1. 1
4.4
0.6
cont/
-------
TABLE 22 (Continued)
rv>
i
SAMPLE
SOURCE
SODIUM
IRON
NICKEL
VANADIUM
POTASSIUM
MAGNESIUM
ALUMINIUM
MANGANESE
LEAD
CHROMIUM
CADMIUM
GAS.
BED
0.6
2.9
7.6
95.5
<0.2
1.0
1.2
0.8
0.9
5.7
0.7
REGEN.
BED
2. 1
2.4
5.2
71.6
0. 17
0.9
2.4
0.6
0.8
7.0
0.8
D.H. '
GAS.
CYC.
1.0
3.4
7-1
94.0
0.05
1.0
1.8
0.9
0.8
28.0
0.8
16. 1800
BOILER
BACK
2.7
2.5
7.2
68.7
0.36
0.9
1.2
0.9
0.8
4.9
0.8
STACK
CYC.
29.2
2.4
7.5
82. 1
1.2
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.8
3.4
0.4
REGEN.
CYC.
21 .0
3.3
11.3
100.0
1.4
0.8
0.8
1.3
1.2
4.9
0.6
-------
Good retention of iron is observed throughout, the
stable enrichment factors being due mainly to the relatively
small amount of the element present in the fuel oil compared
to the limestone (calcined).
Nickel also shows good retention though it shows a
decrease with time, and tends to be progressively captured
by the bed fines.
Magnesium, aluminium, silicon and manganese all show
good retention in the short term, but these results are
difficult to interpret due to the large discrepancy in the
fuel oil and calcined limestone levels.
Finally, both chromium and cadmium balances are open to
question because of the difficulty of measuring the levels
present in the fuel oil feed. As stated above, the enrich-
ment factors are under-estimated for these elements and the
retention may well be considerably higher than reported
here. The results for chromium are interesting nevertheless
in that it seems that the major concentrations appear in the
larger particles of bed material rather than the fines.
Arising from these observations, further work may be
justified to examine the effect of particle size on trace
element retention in greater detail. However, of paramount
importance in any further attempts to better quantify the
capture of the trace elements included here, and to extend
the investigation to other elements, is the necessity of
having more sensitive and precise analytical techniques for
both limestone and fuel oil. A further factor influencing
the balance outcome is the sampling techniques employed.
Checks may be needed to establish a suitable sampling
procedure to ensure that the small sample taken for analysis
is truly representative of the material being analysed.
- 93 -
-------
BATCH UNIT TESTS
Introduction
Under the terms of contract 68-02-1479, Phase 4 required
evaluation of three new limestones and one new fuel in the
ERCA Batch Reactor. In fact, only one limestone was examined,
viz. from Whites Mines, Texas, as a candidate limestone for
the proposed CAFB demonstration project at San Benito in
Texas. This was selected by Foster Wheeler Energy Corpor-
ation as a likely limestone for the programme on the grounds
of the proximity of the source to the test site and avail-
ability of supply. Tests were carried out to examine the
sulphur absorbtion, regeneration and attrition characteristics
of this limestone.
Tests were conducted also on coal as a fuel for the
CAFB gasifier. Initial development work on equipment was
necessary to develop a suitable feeding system for solid
fuel, following which gasification tests were carried out
using Illinois No. 6 sub-bituminous coal and Texas lignite.
The main objectives of this programme were to establish that
solid fuels could be injected into the gasifier at suitable
controllable rates, that the solid fuel could be gasified
and desulphurised and to quantify as far as possible the
potential problems associated with coal and lignite, such as
carbon fines losses and ash accumulation in the gasifier
bed. The primary objectives of this aspect of the contract
were achieved, but the programme was curtailed by the need
to divert effort to preparation and operation of the con-
tinuous CAFB gasifier.
EVALUATION OF TEXAS LIMESTONE
Equipment and procedures
The batch CAFB reactor, and the procedure employed for
evaluating limestones under a variety of operating conditions
have been described previously (Ref. 2). During the current
evaluation, tests were conducted to measure attrition losses
during calcination, combustion, gasification and regeneration
conditions as well as the sulphur retention and regeneration
performance.
-------
Fuels and limestone
The composition of the test limestone provided is given
in Table 23 and is compared with the standard Grove limestone
BCR 1359 selected as the standard for this test work at
Abingdon.
The Texas limestone as received was of uniform size
within the range 6400]u to 3200^ (1/4 inch to 1/8 inch).
Prior to the test work, it was ground to below 3200u (1/8
inch) and sieved to remove fines below 600u. No difficulties
were experienced during the grinding operations and quali-
tatively the Texas limestone appeared to be similar to the
usual Grove limestone in this respect.
Amuay heavy fuel oil with a sulphur level of 2.4 vt%
was used for the gasification tests.
Results and Discussions
The standard conditions employed for the start up of
the batch unit and the calcination, combustion and regener-
ation test stages were found to be entirely satisfactory for
the Texas limestone, and its fluidisation characteristics
when calcined appeared to be no different from the limestone
examined previously (Ref. 2).
Fines losses were measured for propane/kerosine calcin-
ation, kerosine combustion and fuel oil gasification modes.
Results compared to previously evaluated limestones (Ref. 2)
are summarised in Table 24. It can be readily seen that the
attrition losses under a variety of conditions compare
favourably with BCR 1359 and are superior to the other
limestones evaluated.
A 5-hour gasification test was conducted to evaluate
the sulphur retaining performance of the test stone. The
conditions of operation are summarised in Table 25 and the
sulphur removal efficiency - time relationship shown in Fig.
16. This graph is typical of the performance of limestones
in the test and as a first approximation it appears that the
Texas limestone would be a suitable candidate stone for the
CAFB process pending further, more detailed evaluation
should this material be confirmed as the supply for the San
Benito demonstration project.
Regeneration presented no difficulty following the
5-hour gasification test and the sulphur burden on the stone
was reduced from 4.86$ to 0.66$ sulphur in approximately 10
minutes subsequent to the combustion of the carbon laid down
on the limestone during the gasification stages.
- 95 -
-------
TABLE 23
INSPECTION OF TEXAS LIMESTONE EX WHITES MINES
Composition Texas Limestone BCR 1359
CaO (wt %}
MgO (wt %}
Si02 (wt %}
Fe203 (wt % )
A1203 (wt /£)
C02 (wt %)
Total Sulphur (wt %}
Vanadium ppm
Sodium ppm
Particle Size Distribution
Sieve Size u
3200
2800
1400
1 180
850
600
250
150
106
57.1
0.48
3-03
0.42
1.00
38.3
0.21
<25
102
Wt % passing
through sieve
100
69.6
32.9
22.8
8.9
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.2
54.1
0.6
0.75
0.09
0.31
44.0
0. 12
50
<20
100
99.6
87.5
78.0
56.2
32.6
6.6
2. 1
1.4
- 96 -
-------
TABLE 24
PINES LOSSES FOR TEXAS LIMESTONE
Texas Limestone
BCR 1359
BCR 1691
Denbighshire
Test Conditions
Calcination Loss
(% of Calcined)
Stone
6
6
18
16
Kerosine
Combustion
Temperature Losses
(°C) (s/min)
900
870
870
1050
870
1050
1 .6
2.1
22.6
5.7
4.3
3.3
Fuel Oil
Gasification
Temperature Losses
CO (*/min)
896
870
870
870
1.5
3.6
7.8
9.7
Pfizer Calcite
18
870
6.8
-------
TABLE 25
TEXAS LIMESTONE GASIFICATION TEST
CONDITIONS : BATCH TESTS
Duration 5 hours
Fuel Amuay Heavy Fuel Oil,
2.4$ Sulphur
Gasifier Temperature °C 896
Air Rate 1/min 520
Fuel Rate gm/min 210.9
Air/Fuel Ratio (% stoichiometric) 22.6
Bed Velocity (m/sec) 1.5
Bed Depth (cm) 63.5
- 98 -
-------
100
o
y 90
_
UJ
< 80
>
O
s
UJ
tr
a: 70
ID
X
Q_
_J
Z)
C/)
60
I
SULPHUR REMOVAL EFFICIENCY vs TIME
TEXAS LIMESTONE
I
T
I
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 2IO 240 270 300
RUN TIME (MINS)
FIG.16.
-------
Conclusions
No problems can be foreseen for the Texas limestone
tested as bed material for the CAFB process provided it is
available in the appropriate size range to permit easy
fluidisation. Its grindability is satisfactory and it is
not subject to any unusual decrepitation or attrition losses
under a variety of typical operating conditions. The
sulphur retention properties are satisfactory and the
sulphided stone can be readily regenerated. No further work
is planned until it is confirmed that the Whites Mines,
Texas will be the source for limestone for the San Benito
demonstration project, when a more careful comparison with
the standard BCR 1359 stone would be justified.
COAL GASIFICATION STUDIES
Summary
Preliminary work using solid fuels in the CAFB batch
gasifier had identified a number of difficulties which had
to be resolved before further work could be attempted. The
major items were erratic coal feed rates, accompanied by
blockages in the feed system, and the need to improve the
fines collection and disposal system to minimise carbon
losses from the process.
After preliminary work to resolve these problems, a
test programme was initiated to evaluate Illinois No. 6 coal
and Texas lignite as feedstocks for the CAFB process. The
major objectives were to demonstrate injection, gasification
and regeneration and to provide quantitative information on
carbon utilisation and sulphur retention.
The qualitative targets were successfully achieved -
both Illinois No. 6 and lignite could be injected and
gasified. However, it proved more difficult to obtain
quantitative information and only one run was completed
successfully to the point where reasonable carbon and
sulphur balances could be obtained. The main difficulties
occurred with the coal feed system, which, although improved,
was not sufficiently reliable to enable consistent feed
rates of coal to be maintained over the minimum desired test
duration of 5 hours.
- 100 -
-------
The results from the successful run on Illinois No. 6
show that approximately 55% of the carbon was gasified with
73% desulphurisation of the feed. Optimisation of the
performance of the process was hampered by the difficulties
already mentioned.
The experience gained during these tests shows that
improvements should be made to the coal feed system for
future tests. These will not be achieved easily as the coal
feed rates required are relatively low and any fluctuations
thus become more important. A second problem, more amenable
to solution, is the need to improve the gas sampling and
monitoring system for the combusted product gas.
Equipment Modifications
A number of changes were made to the batch gasifier
equipment in preparation for the test work described below.
1. A new coal feed system was designed and constructed.
Tests were carried out to optimise the design and to
calibrate the metering equipment, and whilst excellent
performance was obtained during these stages, diffi-
culties were encountered later, when the equipment was
used to feed coal into the gasifier.
A diagram of the revised coal feed system is shown as
part of the configuration of the batch gasifier in Fig.
17.
Coal stored in the weighed pressurised hopper was fed
through a specially designed cone and a side entry to a
variable speed metering screw. A number of nitrogen
bleeds were found to be essential to ensure the free
flow of coal. Downstream of the screw, the coal was
injected pneumatically into the gasifier.
2. An improved fines handling system for product gas clean
up was installed.
This consisted of a two stage cyclone arrangement. The
first stage cyclone was expected to collect carbon
fines released from the gasifier and to deliver them
into a pneumatic re-injection system. This cyclone was
manufactured from refractory to minimise heat loss as
it was anticipated that carbon utilisation in the
gasifier would be maximised in this case.
- 101 -
-------
LINE DIAGRAM OF BATCH COAL GASIFIER
o
INJ
Gas Sample Point
2nd Stags Cyclone
FIG.17.
-------
The second stage cyclone was fabricated from stainless
steel and was intended to collect finer ash and carbon
particulates not trapped by the first cyclone and to
discharge them from the system.
3. A new distributor was made and fluidising nozzles of a
design similar to that used for the continuous CAFB
gasifier (see Appendix A) were fitted in order to
limit the fall back of bed material into the fluid-
ising air plenum.
4. A number of minor changes were made to improve the
reliability of the measurements taken for batch oper-
ations. A major leak in the gasifier air heater system
was cured. An improved product gas burner was fitted
and it was expected that better sampling of the flared
product gas would be achieved. Facilities were installed
to sample the product gas prior to combustion in order
to carry out gas chromatographic analyses.
Fuels and Limestones
The fuels examined in this series of gasification tests
were Illinois No. 6 sub-bituminous coal, and Texas lignite.
Typical inspection details are given in Table 26.
The lignite contains considerable proportion of ash and
moisture and is consequently of low calorific value.
These feedstocks were available in a variety of size
distributions and ranges. Typically, the size range employed
was -I400u which was the maximum upper size limit on the
capability of the coal feed system. A typical size analysis
for Illinois No. 6 feed is given in Table 27.
The limestone used was the standard Grove stone, BCR
1359 in the size range 600^ to 320Qju. Typical inspections
are given in Table 23-
Operating Procedures
The preparation and warm-up of the batch gasifier have
been described previously as have the changeover to gasifi-
cation and the procedures for bed regeneration (Ref. 2).
For the coal operations, no changes were necessary to
the initial stages of the procedures up to the point where
- 103 -
-------
TABLE 26
TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF ILLINOIS NO. 6 AND TEXAS LIGNITE
Illinois No. 6 Texas Lignite
Carbon (wt %) 65.3 38.1
Hydrogen (wt %) 4.5 3.0
Sulphur (wt %) 2.8 0.5
Nitrogen (wt %) 1.2 0.7
Ash (wt %} 9.0 19.5
Moisture (wt %) 8.2 27.3
Oxygen (wt %) 9.0 10.9
(by difference)
Calorific value, (kJ.kg) 7,270 5,820
(Dry, ash free basis)
- 104 -
-------
TABLE 27
ILLINOIS NO. 6 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Particle Size Range (u) wt %
1400-1180 2.2
1180-850 8.5
850-600 13.7
600-250 35.9
250-150 12.6
150-106 4.1
106-52 17.4
52-0 5-6
- 105 -
-------
the bed was calcined, on kerosine combustion, and ready for
the gasification stage.
At this point the coal system was primed and lined
through to the gasifier with the necessary pressurisation,
fluidisation, and injection gas streams connected and
operational. The kerosine pump was then stopped and the
coal feed system started and adjusted to maintain bed
temperature at 900°C. When stable, the coal rate was
increased to purge the product gas ducts and then quickly
increased again to achieve gasification conditions.
Normal procedures were followed for regeneration.
Results and Discussion
A number of test runs were initiated on both Illinois
No. 6 and Texas Lignite feeds. Normally, no difficulties
were encountered in gasifying either feedstock and in
general no major differences in principle from the more
usual oil gasification tests were observed. However, the
reliability of the coal feed system was unsatisfactory when
operating against the fluctuating back pressures encountered
from the fluidised lime bed. These problems were difficult
to identify and overcome because of their apparently random
nature and frequency. It was considered however, that the
coal flow properties, as influenced by particle size and
moisture content, were important variables since most
of the stoppages involved coal packing in different parts of
the feed system.
Thus, most of the runs attempted had to be aborted
during their early stages before any meaningful quantitative
data could be collected to calculate material balances.
However, it could be seen that coal gasification was
easily achieved and that the gas produced was of comparable
quality to that obtained for fuel oil feed - see Table 28.
Differences in the concentrations of hydrocarbon species and
moisture in the gases are due to the compositional differences
of the oil and coal feedstocks.
One run only was successfully completed to the point
when sufficient data were collected to enable balance
calculations to be made. This run lasted approximately 2
hours and was curtailed because of loss of coal feed.
- 106 -
-------
TABLE 28
PRODUCT GAS ANALYSIS : ILLINOIS NO. 6
Composition (Vol $) Illinois No. 6 Heavy Fuel Oil
H2 12.0 11.0
N2 + Ar 60.1 56.4
CO 10.7 13.3
C02 10.4 8.0
CH4 3-0 6.4
C2H4 0.6 4.2
C2H6 NIL 0.6
H20 3-3 NIL
- 107 -
-------
The summary of results and balance calculations for
this run is given in Table 29 and the detailed calculations
shown in Appendix B.
In general, the balances are reasonable bearing in mind
the accuracy of analysing the product gas and collection and
analysis of the solids.
The sulphur removal efficiency is calculated as 73%
based on the sulphur retained on the solids. However, based
on the S02 level in the product gas, a figure of 90% sulphur
removal is obtained.
Carbon gasification is calculated at 53-5% with a
further 6.7% being burnt as fines inthe burner. 15.0$ of
the carbon was captured in the product gas cyclones, together
with ash, and rejected from the system. A further 7.6% was
released during regeneration, giving an overall carbon
recovery of 82.8$. The apparent loss of 17.2$ is due to
inaccuracies in measurements.
Conclusions
These experiments have demonstrated that gasification
and desulphurisation of lignite and Illinois No. 6 sub-
bituminous coal is possible in the CAFB process. A carbon
utilisation of 61$ was recorded for Illinois No. 6 with 54$
of the carbon fed being gasified. Sulphur removal efficiency
measured by sulphur retained and sulphur in the flared gas
was 73$ and 90$ respectively.
Ash present in the coal and lignite did not appear to
present any practical problems, particularly during the high
temperature regeneration phase when ash fusion might have
occurred. A large proposition of the ash was rejected from
the system via the product gas cyclones.
Further development work is required to improve the
reliability of the coal feed system and the gas analysis
systems.
- 108 -
-------
TABLE 29
SUMMARY OF MATERIALS BALANCES
Illnois No.6
Material % Recovery
Lime 114.2
Ash 96.7
Carbon 82.8
Hydrogen 98.4
Oxygen 85.9
Sulphur 82.4
- 109 -
-------
REFERENCES
1 . Study of Chemically Active Fluid Bed Gasifier for
Reduction of Sulphur Oxide Emissions. Final Report,
Contract No. CPA 70-46, June 1972.
2. J.W.T. Craig et. al. CAFB Process for Removal of
Sulphur During Gasification of Heavy Fuel Oil, Second
Phase. Esso Research Centre, Abingdon. Report No.
EPA-650/2-74-109, November 1974.
3. J.W.T. Craig et. al. CAFB Process for Removal of
Sulphur During Gasification of Heavy Fuel Oil, Third
Phase. Esso Reseach Centre, Abingdon. Report No.
EPA-600/2-76-248, September 1976.
4. G.P. Curran, C.E. Fink and E. Gorin. Phase II Bench
Scale Research on CSG Process, R & D Report No. 16.
Report to Office of Coal Research, Contract No.
14-01-0001-415. Consolidation Coal Co., July 1st
1969.
5. D.L. Keairns et. al. Fluidisied Bed Combustion Process
Evaluation. Westinghouse Research Laboratories,
Pittsburgh. Report No. EPA-650/2-75-027-b, 1975.
6. R.W. Cox et. al. J. Inst. Fuel, 498.
7. D. Lyon. First Trials of CAFB Pilot Plant on Coal.
Esso Research Centre, Abingdon. Report No.
EPA-600/7-77-027, March 1977.
8. A.S. Werner et. al. Preliminary Environmental Assess-
ment of the CAFB. GCA Corporation, Bedford,
Massachusetts. Report No. EPA-600/7-76-017, October
1976.
9. G.L. Johnes to S.L. Rakes, minutes and action points
agreed at CAFB design review meeting, Esso Research
Centre, Abingdon, May 10th-13th 1976.
- 110 -
-------
APPENDIX A
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
CONTINUOUS PILOT UNIT
DESIGN BASIS
DESIGN OF NEW GASIFIER - REGENERATOR UNIT
CONSTRUCTION
BITUMEN INJECTION SYSTEM
MODIFICATIONS IN SUPPORT OF DEMONSTRATION PLANT
Figs A1 to A8
Table A1 Design Fuels
Table A2 Refractories Used in Construction
Table A3 Position of Gasifier Penetrations
112
113
117
117
118
120
128
129
130
- 111 -
-------
DESIGN BASIS
1. Process Requirements
Desirable process requirements for the new plant, based
on previous experience and expected range of operation, were
specified as follows:
Range Design
Bed depth, ra 0.76-1.52 0.91
Bed velocity, m/sec 0.91-1.83 1.37
Bed temperature, *C 850 - 950 900
Bed stoichiometry, % 15-30 20
At design rate the gasifier must also be capable of
gasifying bitumen. The regenerator must be able to cope
with the sulphur absorbed over the whole operating range.
2. Limitations
The gasifier and regenerator must both fit inside the
existing pit 3.35m x 3.66m x 2.01m deep (11ft x 12ft x 6.6ft
deep) with personnel access all round; the product gas
output must be within the rating of the existing boiler;
layout of the plant must take into consideration the existence
of plant ancilliaries (blower house etc.). Any removable
plant items must be within the lifting capabilities of the
existing crane (508 kg, or 1120 Ib) while crane height will
limit the positioning of the highest item of the plant.
3. Desirable features
Plant must be insulated to simulate a much larger unit;
preferred surface temperature of metal work to be <60°C
(140JF). Cyclones should be insensitive to gasifier pressure
and flow fluctuations, should be accessible for modifications,
and cyclone drainage should be easily accessible for mod-
ifications to the fines return system. The regenerator
should be either in a separate vessel or it should be so
arranged that it can be broken out, if necessary, and
re-cast without disturbing the gasifier.
Tops of the gasifier and regenerator must be free to
expand independently; gasifier top must be fixed to line up
with cyclone inlets. Since refractory will crack, planes of
weakness must be provided so that cracks do not follow
undesirable directions.
-112-
-------
DESIGN OF NEW GASIFIER/REGENERATOR UNIT
1. Gasifier
The existing boiler rating is 2.93 x 106W (10? B.Th.U/hr)
Allowing a 10? safety margin, the maximum fuel rate should be
<2.64 x 106W «9 x 106 B.Th.U/hr). Characteristics of the
design fuels are shown in Table A1.
Maximum fuel oil rate = 223.6 kg/hr (492.6 Ib/hr).
Maximum gasifier air at = 8.05 sm3/min (284.2 scfm).
20% stoichiometric
Bed bottom conditions; temperature = 900°C (1652*F)
assumed pressure = 17.5kPa (70" WG)
Actual air flow = 29.5 a m3/min (1042 acfm)
Bed area for 1.83 m/sec. = 0.882m2 (2.89 ft2)
(6 ft/sec)
Bed diameter at base = 58.4 cm (23")
Allowance for increase in gas
volume (H2 + CO + CnHm) = 28%
Bed diameter after gas expansion = 66.0 cm (26")
Above the bed divergence to facilitate mould withdrawal
to 71.1 cm (28").
2. Regenerator
Sulphur loading at maximum
fuel oil rate = 5.57 kg/hr (12.27 Ib/hr)
Sulphur loading at design
bitumen rate =. 5.47 kg/hr (12.06 Ib/hr)
Therefore a regenerator sized to cope with the maximum
fuel oil rate should also cope with bitumen.
At 80% (assumed) sulphur removal efficiency in the
gasifier the balancing S02 removal from the regenerator is
0.052 sm3/min (1.84 scfm). Assuming typical values, from
previous runs, of 4$ v/vC02 and 7.0% v/vS02 in the regener-
ator product gas the required air rate is 0.85 nP/min (30
scfm) and, at 1050'C (1922'F), 20 kPa (80" WG) and 1.83
m/sec (6 ft/sec) bed velocity the required regenerator
- 113 -
-------
bottom diameter can be calculated as 20 cm (7.87"). Since
the aspect ratio of the regenerator would be undesirably
large at high bed depths it was decided to make the regener-
ator a truncated cone in shape, 19.05 cm, (7.5") at the
distributor and 22.86 cm (9") at the 107 cm (42") level.
3. Plant Geometry
The internal diameters of the two reactor cavities and
the intention to use the same system for transferring solids
between the gasifier and the regenerator as in the old
unit, fixed the centre lines of the reactor cavities at
approximately 68.6 cm (27") apart and the thickness of
the hot face refractory wall (sufficient to contain the
solids transfer system) at 15.2 cm (6"), with both cavities
cast inside one steel vessel. Heat transfer calculations
showed that 10.2 cm (4") of pearlite based insulating
refractory backed by 5.1 cm (2") of fibrous insulation would
meet the requirement of maximum steelwork temperature of
60*C (140*F). This resulted in a plant section as shown in
Fig. A1. The independence of gasifier and regenerator
expansion was achieved by a vertical membrane of Kaowool
blanket while the gasifier top was suspended from the wall
anchors with an expansion joint below. The 3.2 mm (1/8")
thick, externally braced metal casing was joined by a flange
along the gasifier/regenerator separating membrane and
was supported in such a way that the flange could be split
and the regenerator removed, if necessary, without affecting
the integrity of the gasifier.
4. Product Gas Cyclones
In order to minimise the effect of gasifier pressure
fluctuations on cyclone performance it was decided to use
twin ter Linden type cyclones with over-square external
snail gas inlets extending for 180" at a loading of approx-
imately 230 m3/min/m2 (750 scfm/ft^) of cyclone cross-
sectional area and 15 m/sec (50 ft/sec) inlet and outlet
velocity.
At design conditions of 1.37 m/sec (4.5 ft/sec):-
Air flow = 6.02 sm3/min (212.5 scfm)
Product gas flow (assumed 28%
increase) = 7.70 smVmin (272.0 scfm)
Product gas flow (2.5 k Pa,
900*C) = 32.3 am3/min (1140.7 acfm)
Product gas flo.w per cyclone = 16.2 am3/min (570.5 acfm)
- 114 -
-------
Therefore:
Cyclone cross-sectional
area = 0.071 m2 (0.76 ft2)
Cyclone diameter = 30.5 cm (12")
Cyclone inlet area = 0.017 m2 (0.19 ft2)
Cyclone inlet, dimensions = 11.4 cm x 15.2 cm (4.5" x 6")
Although the desired cyclone outlet diameter was
calculated as 15 cm (5.9"), the self-bonded silicon carbide
tubes salvaged from the old unit were re-used; these were 14
cm I.D. (5.5" I.D.). The estimated pressure drop of these
cyclones was:
at minimum flow conditions 1 kPa (4" W-G.)
at design flow conditions 2 kPa (8" W.G.)
at maximum flow conditions 3.5 kPa (14" W.G.)
The mechanical details of the cyclones are shown in Fig. A2 .
5 . Closures
The gasifier lid was a cylindrical block of refractory,
insulated and attached by anchors to a braced metal plate.
Details of the gasifier lid dimensions are shown in Fig. A3.
The estimated weight was:
Ib
Hot face refractory 210.0 463
Insulating refractory 5.0 11
Fibrous insulation 5.4 12
Structural steelwork 45.8 101
Fittings 43.6
Total 309TS
Therefore Lift-off pressure = 7.68 kPa (30.7" W.G.)
- 115 -
-------
To allow the lid to act as a safety valve the flue gas
connection to the lid was made from flexible metal pipe
which would allow free movement over about 38 cm (15") in
the vertical direction.
The gasifier distributor was intended to consist of a
7.5 cm (3") thick refractory slab mounted on a steel disc
and pierced for 16 air nozzles, 4 in an inner ring and 12 in
an outer ring. The plenum chamber was to be constructed
from 3.2 mm (0.125") steel with a sloping base to facilitate
solids removal. Since this arrangement was not used, no
further details are provided. Design information for the
modified distributor are given below.
The regenerator lid was a cylindrical refractory plug
connected via a refractory lined duct of 6.6 cm I.D. (2.6")
off-take pipe and a bare, 51.0 x 44.5 mm (2" x 1.75")
internal, branch pipe to a 10.2 cm (4.0") diameter cyclone,
geometrically similar to the product gas cyclone. The
off-take pipe was connected via spring loaded bolts to the
regenerator top steel plate with the spring loading allowing
20 mm (0.8") vertical movement to allow for refractory
expansion. This lid was not designed to act as a relief
valve. Details are shown in Fig. A4.
The regenerator distributor consisted of a 5 cm (2")
thick refractory slab pierced to take 3 air nozzles which
communicated with a 5 cm high 25 cm dia. (2" high x 10"
dia.) air distributor plenum; details in Fig. A5.
6. Fines re-injection
The available height was insufficient to fit cyclone
dipleg seals, therefore the product gas cyclones were
drained into lock hoppers from which fines were re-injected
into the gasifier via 21 mm (0.81") injectors. Angle of
repose seals with pulsed seal breakers were used to control
the rate of re-injection. Perforated steel plate "chunk
traps" were provided to remove large agglomerates which
might form and be dislodged during burn-out. Details of the
lock hoppers are shown in Fig. A6.
- 116 -
-------
CONSTRUCTION
Most of the plant steelwork was constructed in the ERCA
workshops. The refractory was subcontracted to A.P. Green
Ltd., with their recommended refractories described in Table
A2. The plant was piped into existing service supplies
(air, steam, flue gas recycle, analysers, etc.) and connected
to the existing G.W.B. boiler. Positions of various pene-
trations are listed in Table A3.
BITUMEN INJECTION SYSTEM
The bitumen injection system consisted of two separate
parts: storage and circulating ring main and the injection
system.
Storage of bitumen was provided in an insulated trailer
normally used for road surfacing operation. The trailer was
provided with two gas oil (No. 2 heating oil) burners, which
needed to be fired intermittently to maintain the bitumen in
a fluid state, and a hydraulically operated pump for cir-
culating and mixing the contents. The outlet from the
circulating pumps was connected to a circulating ring main
which consisted of a concentric double pipe with 5.5 bar (80
psi) steam in the annular space and insulated outside. The
installation also included a stand-by diesel driven circu-
lating pump, fire shut off valves and temperature sensors.
Hot bitumen was taken from the ring main and pumped via
a Plenty 200 metering pump and a flow meter to electrically
traced lines which could be connected to any one of six oil
injectors (four side injectors and two pit injectors).
The Plenty 200 pump had modified bearings and seals
suitable for high temperature operation and both the pump
and the meter were electrically heat traced and insulated.
Preliminary trials showed that the flow meter would not
meter bitumen and it therefore had to be by-passed and flow
estimated from the pump calibration.
- 117 -
-------
MODIFICATIONS IN SUPPORT OF DEMONSTRATION PLANT
Resulting from discussions with Foster Wheeler, it was
decided to incorporate and test out some possible design
features of the proposed demonstration plant. These were:
Modified air distributor with enclosed oil injectors.
Tuyere injection of flue gas.
Bag filter for recycled flue gas.
Feasibility of coal injection
1. Modified air distributor
A 12.7 cm (5") deep by 29.2cm (11.5") square pit was
incorporated in the centre of the distributor so that the
fuel injectors could penetrate through the refractory with
only the injector tip exposed to the fluid bed. As can be
seen from Fig. A7, provision was made for two withdrawable
fuel injectors: one through a hole in the refractory and the
other through a channel which would fill with slumped lime
and shield the injector. It was also arranged so that
either fuel oil or bitumen could be injected through either
of the two injectors. In addition, a withdrawable vertical
central injector, which passed through a gland seal in the
air plenum, was installed and piped in to take either fuel
oil or kerosene. The gasifier was now equipped with seven
injectors piped in so that any combination of one or more
could be selected to inject fuel oil or kerosene and up to
six (i.e. excluding the central vertical injector) could be
selected to inject bitumen. Details of the fuel injector
seal arrangements are shown in Fig. A8.
2. Tuyere injection of flue gas
This modification allowed the possibility of routing
the moderating flue gas either mixed with air through the
plenum or separately, through the tuyere, directly into the
fluid bed. Successful tuyere injection of flue gas would
allow its use in an unfiltered state with possible cost
savings. The tuyere consisted of a 5cm (2") I.D. EN 312
S.S. pipe inserted up to 38cm (15") into the fluid bed at an
angle of 45° downward through a sealing gland which replaced
the start-up burner.
- 118 -
-------
3. Bag filter for recycled flue gas
Since this seemed to be an excellent opportunity for
checking out the performance of a bag filter in flue gas
cleaning service, the existing flue gas venturi scrubber was
replaced with a rectangular filter box containing four 20cm
dia. by 1.52m long (8" dia. x 5' long) Nomex 40 filter bags.
Flue gas entered a plenum near the top of the box, flowed
radially outward through the filter bags and exited near the
base. Cleaning was by back flow of nitrogen and manual
withdrawal of solids through a lock hopper.
4. Feasibility of Coal Injection
Equipment to test qualitatively the feasibility of
injecting coal into the gasifier was prepared for temporary
installation towards the end of the test run. It consisted
of a pressurised hopper which discharged via a 5 cm (2")
pipe, valve and a pulsed angle of repose flow controller
(identical to that used with the fines return lock hoppers)
to a 32 mm (1.25") I.D. injector which was to be inserted
through the centre of the flue gas recycle tuyere. A bleed
of flue gas through the tuyere, which would act as a shroud,
and a stream of air through the injector would reproduce
approximately the conditions found suitable for coal injection
on the batch units. The intention was to charge the coal
hopper manually with Illinois No.6 coal sieved into various
cuts in the range 0-3.2 mm (0-0.125") and inject coal
intermittently, while backing-off liquid fuel, to check
whether the injector would coke-up or remain free. Provision
was made also to use the limestone injection system for
injection of coal by providing a manual filling connection
and inerting with nitrogen.
- 119 -
-------
NEW PILOT PLANT GEOMETRY
(Approx. Scale, 1:39)
GASIFIER
REGENERATOR
TRANSFER DUCT
\
FIG. Al
- 120 -
-------
PRODUCT GAS CYCLONE
(Approx. Scale, 1:19)
FIG. A2
- 121 -
-------
GASIFIER LID
(Approx. Scale, 1:13)
FIG. A3
- 122 -
-------
REGENERATOR TOP
(Approx. Scale, 1:7)
--§}-- I
FIG. A4
- 123 -
-------
REGENERATOR DISTRIBUTOR
(Approx. Scale, 1:3.5)
m
• —-A •* O '•
FIG. A5
- 124 -
-------
FINES RETURN LOCK HOPPER
(Not to Scale)
SIEVE PLATE
CHUNK TRAP
DISCHARGE VALVE
FIG. A6
- 125 -
-------
MODIFIED GASIFIER DISTRIBUTOR
(Approx. Scale, 1:12)
FIG. A7
- 126 -
-------
FUEL INJECTOR SEAL ARRANGEMENT
(Not to Scale)
rv>
-j
i
FIG. A8
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLE A1
DESIGN FUELS
C , wt %
H, wt %
S, wt %
Cv, MJ/kg (B.Th.U/lb)
Stoichiometric air*,
m3/kg (scf/lb)
Fuel Oil
85.31
11 .28
2.49
42.5 (18270)
10.81 (173.1)
Bitumen
85.83
10.46
3.22
41.98 (18050)
10.66 (170.8)
* Note: air taken at 1.5$ moisture
- 128 -
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLE A2
REFRACTORIES USED IN CONSTRUCTION
IV)
VD
Refractory
Greencast 94(1)
High Temperature
Castable(1)
LW-22U)
Eagle-Pitcher(
Refel(2)
Type
Tabular alumina
70$ alumina low
iron, low lime
Pearlite baaed
lightweight cast-
able refractory
Mineral fibre
insulating block
Self-bonded
silicon carbide
Maximum Service
Temperature,'C('F)
1870 (3400)
1650 (3000)
1200 (2200)
10'IO (1900)
1400+(2550+)
Cured density
kg.m3 (lb/ft3)
2600 (162)
2250 (140)
802 (50)
270 (17)
3100 (194)
Use
Cyclone liners
Gasifier regenerator,
duct lining, cyclone
tops, lock hopper
lining, lids, dist-
ributors.
Insulating refractory
for gasifier, regen-
erator 4 cyclones.
Internal insulation
of gasifier, regen-
erator, gas ducts 4
gasifier lid.
Cyclone off-take
pipes.
Notes
TT7 Supplied by A.P. Green Refractories Ltd., Dock Road South, Bromborough, Merseyside, U.K.
(2) Supplied by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., Risley, Harrington, U.K.
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLE A3
POSITIONS OF GASIFIER PENETRATIONS
Item
1. Warm-up burner, bottom edge
Warm-up burner, top edge
2. Sample drain, lower
Sample drain, upper
3. Side oil injector, lower (one each side)
Side oil injector, upper (one each side)
4. Fines return injection (one each side)
5. Thermocouple, bottom
(protrudes 5.1cm, 2")
Thermocouple, middle
(protrudes 5.1cm, 2")
Thermocouple, top
(protrudes 8.9cm, 3-5")
6. Pressure tapping, lower
(protrudes 1.9cm, 0.75")
Pressure tapping, upper
(protrudes 2.2cm, 0.88")
7. Lime injection, centre of
6cm (2.4") aperture
8. Transfer duct, "post box", lower edge
Transfer duct, "post box", upper edge
Transfer duct, return from regen.,
centre of 6.7cm (2.6") aperture
9. Underside of gasifier lid
Height from
distributor,
cm (inches)
8.9 ( 3.5)
30.5 (12.0)
19.1 ( 7.5)
63.5 (25.0)
16.5 ( 6.5)
33.0 (13-0)
19.1 ( 7.5)
15.2 ( 6.0)
50.8 (20.0)
85.1 (33.5)
8-9 ( 3.5)
35.6 (14.0)
48.9 (19.3)
77.5 (30.5)
84.5 (33.3)
22.5 ( 8.9)
348.0(137.0)
Note:
Warm-up burner and lime injection penetrations are angled
at approximately 45*.
All other penetrations are angled at 30" to horizontal
- 130 -
-------
APPENDIX B
BATCH UNIT STUDIES
MATERIALS BALANCE : ILLINOIS No. 6 COAL RUN
Balance calculations for the batch unit operation on
Illinois No. 6 coal are detailed below, established over the
total gasification period. Due to operational difficulties,
the gas composition during regeneration is not available and
assumptions with regard to sulphur and carbon balances must
be made. These are identified in the calculations.
Balance Calculations
1. General information
(a) Run duration : 107 minutes of gasification.
(b) Temperature conditions are shown in Fig. B1
2. Input materials
(a) Weight of BCR 1359 limestone added = 16.0 kg.
For the sample of limestone used, the total loss
of material as C02 and moisture during the calcining
stage amounted to 41? giving an initial lime bed weight
of 9.44 kg.
The composition of the lime is detailed below in
Table 1.
TABLE 1
LIME COMPOSITION
(weight %)
Ca as CaO 97.30
Mg as MgO 0.92
Al as A1203 0.59
Si as Si02 °-89
Fe as F6203 0.20
- 131 -
-------
It has been assumed that 2% of the calcined lime
bed would behave as ash derived from the coal feed,
appearing as hydrochloric acid insolubles during analysis,
Thus, there is assumed to be an initial "ash"
burden on the lime bed of 0.189 kg.
(b) Coal fed during the run amounted to 29.994 kg.
The composition and weights of individual components
are given in Table 2.
TABLE 2
COAL FEED COMPOSITION AND WEIGHTS FED
Composition
(wt %)
65.3
4.5
2.8
1 .2
9.0
8.2
by difference) 9.0
Weight Fed
(kg)
19.586
1.350
0.840
0.360
2.699
2.460
2.699
Carbon
Hydrogen
Sulphur
Nitrogen
Ash
Moisture
(c) Air input to the gasifier during the gasification
period amounted to 58.5l4m3, comprising 46.226m3 No
and 12.288m3 02.
Thus, the total N2 input from air and coal
= 46.226 + 0.360 x 22.4 = 46.5l4m3 or 58.143 kg
28
and total 02 input
= 12.288 + 2.669 x 22.4 = I4.156m3 or 20.223 kg
32
- 132 -
-------
3. Materials removed during gasification and regeneration
Tables 3 and 4 give the weights of materials removed as
solids samples during the run and at the end of regeneration,
and their compositions.
4. Product Gas
Averaged values for the composition and resulting
weights of elements for the product gas from the gasifier are
given in Table 5. The volume of product gas is established
on the basis of the input N2:
Input N2 = 46.415 m3, representing 59.7% of the product
gas volume.
Therefore, product gas volume = 46.514 x 100 = 77.913 m3
59.7
TABLE 5
PRODUCT GAS COMPOSITION
Volume Volume Weight Weight of Element (kg)
N2
H2
CO
C02
CH4
C2H4
H20
59.
1 1.
10.
10.
3.
0.
3.
7
9
6
3
0
6
9
m
46.
9.
8.
8.
2.
0.
3.
i3
514
272
259
025
337
467
039
kg
58. 143
0.
10.
15.
1.
0.
2.
828
324
763
669
584
442
N2 H2 C_
58.143
0.828
4.425
4.299
0.417 1.252
0.083 0.501
-
02
-
5.899
11.464
-
-
-
100 77.913 89.753 58.143 1.328 10.477 17.363
It is assumed also that there is no net loss or gain or
moisture through the gasifier, and that the S02 level in the
product gas, typically at ppm levels is insignificant.
- 133 -
-------
TABLE 3
SOLIDS SAMPLES,
, WEIGHTS AND COMPOSITION
COMPOSITION (wt It)
«*
oo
-tr
1
ORIGIN
1st Cyclone
2nd Cyclone
Gasif ier
Gasifier
1 at Cyclone
2nd Cyclone
TIME
(rain)
30
60
10?
After
Regeneration
After
Regeneration
After
Regeneration
SAMPLE
WEIGHT
~T£g)
0.190
4.763
0.100
9.800
0.170
1.474
TOTAL
SULPHUR
3.01
1.65
2.96
1.04
3.22
3.57
SULPHATE
SULPHUR
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.83
<0.01
<0.01
CARBON
28.8
43-0
12.1
0.1
55.3
48.3
ACID
INSOLS.
43.0
91 -0
16.0
2.1
84-0
62.0
LIME
54.0
7-4
81 .0
96.9
12.8
34-4
ASH
14.2
48.0
3-9
2.0
28.7
13.7
-------
TABLE 4
WEIGHTS REMOVED,
WEIGHT (am)
1
UJ
1
ORIGIN
1st Cyclone
2nd Cyclone
Gaaifier
Gaaifier
1st Cyclone
2nd Cyclone
TIME
( mi ri )
30
60
107
After
Regeneration
After
Regeneration
After
Regeneration
TOTALS
SAMPLE
WEIGHT
(kg)
0.190
4-763
0.100
9.800
0.170
1.474
TOTAL
SULPHUR
6
79
3
102
6
53
249
SULPHATE
SULPHUR CARBON
55
2048
12
81 10
94
712
§1 2931
ACID
INSOLS.
82
4332
16
206
143
914
LIME
103
353
81
9496
143
9H
ASH
27
2286
4
196
49
202
-------
5. Combusted Gas Composition
The typical composition of the flared product gas is
given below in Table 6.
TABLE 6
FLARED GAS COMPOSITION
Vol. %
02 3.7
C02 14.6
S02 0.042
These data will be used later in calculating total
sulphur and carbon balances.
6. Materials Balances
(a) Lime Weight lime fed = 98 x 9.44 = 9.251 kg
100
Weight lime recovered = 10.5.62 kg
% = 10.562 - 9.251 x 100$ = 14.2 %
9.251
(b) Ash Weight ash fed = 2.669 + 2 x 9.44 = 2.858 kg
100
Weight ash recovered = 2.764 kg
% = 2.764 - 2.858 x 100$ = -3.3%
2.858
It is noted that most of the ash recovery was from
the 2nd stage cyclone where 2.488 kg (87$) of the ash
fed appeared.
(c) Hydrogen Weight hydrogen fed = 1.350 kg
Weight hydrogen recovered = 1.328 kg
% = 1.328 - 1.350 x 100$ = -1.6$
1.350
- 136 -
-------
(d) Carbon
Weight carbon fed = 19.586 kg
This has to be accounted for by the carbon recovered
from samples and bed material, the carbon gasified, and
the fines present in the product gas combusted in the
gas burner.
Carbon recovered from solid samples = 2.931 kg
Carbon present in product gas = 10.477 kg
Carbon burn off during regeneration cannot be
estimated from gas composition sa these are not available.
However, an estimate may be made based on bed weights
and compositions.
Let x = weight of gasifier bed at start of regener-
ation, and assume that the solids collected in the
cyclones accumulated during the regeneration phase.
81 (x + 0.1) = 96.9 x 9.^96 + 12.8 x 0.17 + 34.4 x 1.474
100 100 100 TOO
x = 12.277 kg
Thus, carbon content of gasifier at end of gasific-
ation, burnt of during regeneration
= 12.1 x 12.277 = 1.486 kg
100
It remains to calculate the carbon fines which have
been combusted in the product gas burner.
The Q£ require for stoichiometric combustion of
the product gas
= weight for hydrogen combustion + weight for
carbon combustion - weight of oxygen in
product gas
= 1.328 x 16 -i- 10.477 x 32 - 17.363 kg
2 12
= 21.190 kg
Equivalent weight of N2 = 21.190 x 79 x 28 = 69-750 kg
21 x 32
- 137 -
-------
Thus, the composition of the combusted product gas
under stoichiometric conditions is:
N2 = 58.143 + 69.750 = 127.893 kg
C02 = 10.477 + 10.477 x 32 = 38.415 kg
12
H20 = 1.328 + 1.328 x _16_ = 3.099 kg
2
(Check 02 = 21.195 + 17-363 - 10.477 x 32 - 1.328 x J6_ = Nil)
12 2
This ignors the insignificant amount of oxygen
required to convert any sulphur species to S02.
The additional amount of carbon burnt as fines may
now be calculated.
TABLE 7
FLARED GAS COMPOSITION
Weight (kg) Volume (m3) Volume (%)
N2 127.893 102.314 83.92
C02 38.415 19.559 16.08
A measured 14.6? C02 was obtained at 3.7% excess
oxygen giving a level under stoichiometric conditions of
14.6 x 21 = 17.72 vol %
21-3.7
and a corresponding N2 level of 82.28 vol %. The actual
N2 volume is 102.315 m3 and thus the C02 volume
= 17-72 x 102.314 m3 = 22.034 m3.
82. 2S
The additional C02 = 22.034 - 19.559 = 2.435 m3
representing 1.304 kg of carbon as fines in the product
gas.
- 138 -
-------
Thus, total carbon recovered
= 2.931 + 10.477 + 1.486 + 1.304
= 16.198 kg
= 16.198 - 19.586 x 100* = -17.255
19.586
Carbon gasified = 10.477 x 100* = 53.5*
19.586
(e) Sulphur
Sulphur fed = 0.840 kg
Sulphur recovered on solid samples = 0.249 kg
Sulphur lost during regeneration
= 2.96 x 12.277 = 0.363 kg
100
Sulphur recovered in combusted gas
= 32 x 10.477 x 0.042 = 0.080 kg
12 x 14.6
Total sulphur recovery = 0.692 kg
= 0.692 - 0.840 x 100* = -17.6*
0.840
Sulphur removal efficiency (based on combusted gas
analysis)
= 0-°80 x 100* = 90*
0.840
Sulphur removal efficiency (based on sulphur
retained on bed material) = 73*
(f) Oxygen
Weight oxygen fed = 20.223*
Weight oxygen recovered = 17.363*
* = 17.363 - 20.223 x 100* = -14. V.
20.223
- 139 -
-------
BATCH UNIT OPERATING TEMPERATURES
ILLINOIS NO. 6.
1200
1100
1000
END OF
REGENERATION
START OF
GASIFICATION
START OF
REGENERATION
TIME (HR)
FIG. B.
- 140 -
-------
APPENDIX C
OPERATIONAL LOG, TEST DATA, INSPECTION.
EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE
OPERATIONAL LOG
TEST DATA
PERFORMANCE OF EQUIPMENT DURING RUN 10
INSPECTION OF UNIT
Figures C1 to C33 Photographs of pilot plant
components after Run 10
Table 1 Temperatures and Feed Rates
Table 2 Gas Flow Rates
Table 3 Pressures
Table 4 Desulphurisation Performance
Table 5 Gas Compositions
Table 6 Sulphur and Stone Cumulative Balance
Table 7 Solids Removals (Raw Data)
Table 8 Solids Removals (Total Carbon Analysis)
Table 9 Solids Removals (Sulphate Sulphur Analysis)
Table 10 Solids Removals (Total Sulphur Analysis)
Table 11 Sieve Analysis
Table 12 Summary of Gasification Periods
Figure C34 Chronological Plot of Unit Performance
£
142
159
159
162
168
188
194
200
206
212
220
228
230
231
232
233
237
238
- 141 -
-------
OPERATIONAL LOG
10.11.75 to 20.11.75 : Refractory curing and warm-up
The warm-up burner was lit at 11.15 on 10.11.75 to
commence the curing and warm-up sequence for the new
refractory according to the schedule provided by the
refractory suppliers, A.P. Green Services Ltd.
Temperature Range
0°C to 120'C
Hold at 120*C
120*C to 260°C
Hold at 260°C
260°C to 540°C
Hold at 540'C
540°C to 815'C
Hold at 815°C
Rate CC/hr)
15
15
15
15
TOTAL
Duration (hr)
8
9.75
9.33
9.75
18.67
9.75
18.33
9.75
93.33
All gasifier and regenerator thermocouples were with-
drawn 2.5 cm (1 inch) into their respective refractory walls
during this period in order to monitor the refractory
temperatures more accurately.
The above schedule was followed as closely as possible
for both the gasifier and regenerator sections of the unit
by modulating propane and air rates to the warm-up burner
situated in the gasifier. Further control was possible,
particularly to cure the regenerator refractory, by varying
hot gas flows within the unit using the gasifier-regenerator
pressure balance blower system, the gasifier, regenerator,
boiler and flue gas recycle blowers, and the various dampers
controlling gas flows around the system.
During the initial stages of the warm-up sequence,
copious amounts of water were released from the new
refractory, and internal wooden and wax moulds were burnt
out.
- 142 -
-------
On 15.11.75, the gasifier and regenerator refractory
wall temperatures reached 710*C and 570"C respectively, the
maxima possible using the propane burner. Further temper-
ature boost was achieved by initiating kerosine injection
into the gasifier distributor pit at 15.35 on 15.11.75, and
the remainder of the recommended curing schedule completed
for the gasifier. A further curing period was then necessary
for the regenerator as its temperature lagged the gasifier
temperature throughout.
Propane was gradually backed out and replaced with
kerosine during this period, and limestone addition was
started at 18.00 on 16.11.75. The kerosine was replaced
with Heavy Fuel Oil at 15.30 on 11.19.75 with the bed depth
in the gasifier at 115 cm (45 ins), and the temperature at
940'C. The gasifier and regenerator thermocouples were
inserted so that they protruded 5 cm (2 inch) into their
respective limestone beds on 17.11.75 at 15.00 hours.
Curing of other refractory lined channels and vessels,
such as the hot gas ducts and cyclones was assumed to be
complete when the regenerator curing sequence ended. Since
these would not be subject to such extreme thermal and
mechanical stress as the main reaction vessels, it was not
considered essential to adhere as closely to the recommended
curing schedule.
Throughout the period, construction, commissioning of
instrumentation, calibration and other preparatory work was
being carried out around the pilot unit and its associated
subsystems. Shut downs were frequently necessary to
accommodate this work safely, and there were also numerous
unscheduled shut downs arising from a variety of minor
operational and equipment difficulties.
Two major problems were identified during the latter
stages of the warm-up. The product gas cyclone drains and
fines returns system did not function according to expect-
ations, and secondly, there were signs of erratic delivery
from the limestone feed equipment. Some attention was given
to both problems, but no satisfactory solutions could be
found before gasification was commenced. Both systems
subsequently gave persistent trouble virtually throughout
the entire running period.
21.11.75 : Day 1 (of gasification)
Gasification was initiated at 23-30 on 20.11.75; day 1
of gasification was taken as 21.11.75. During the early
- 143 -
-------
part of the day, conditions were stabilised with rich
operation and low bed velocity in the gasifier. Bed depth
was initially 99 cm but was increased to approximately 120
cm by 07.30. The stone feed rate was erratic, and eventually
stopped completely at 08.30 when the gasifier temperature
increased to 940°C as a result.
A high stone feed rate was re-established at 13-30 and
conditions were lined out with lean A/F ratio, low bed
/elocity and a deep bed with the gasifier temperature just
above 900*C. Sulphur removal efficiency under these con-
ditions ranged between 80% and 85%.
The regenerator came on stream at 09.30 with a S02
level of 4.8$ in the off gas.
The fines returns system did not function consistently
throughout the day with the right hand cyclone apparently
not collecting much solids, and the left hand cyclone not
draining efficiently. Gas leaks were plugged around the
cyclone off-takes with asbestos rope and refractory.
A leak in the boiler gas sampling line was repaired at
15.45.
Leaks were found also in the manometer connecting lines
to the gasifier and regenerator. These were traced and
eliminated.
22.11.75 : Day 2
Initially, gasifier conditions were lined out with a
high stone feed rate, deep bed and rich operation at 22%
stoichiometric air. During the day, running conditions were
established at low stone addition rate, less than 1 molar,
and the gasifier temperature allowed to rise. Towards the
latter part of the day, fuel and air rates were increased to
establish a higher velocity. Bed depth dropped steadily
during the day from 126 cm to 110 cm due to poor stone feed
control and unsatisfactory performance from the fines collec-
tion and returns system.
The low stone feed rate was caused by excessive damping
of the vibrator metering table which only performed even
moderately well immediately after it had been thoroughly
cleaned.
The fines returns left hand cyclone drain was found to
have a valve actuator incorrectly connected to the pneumatic
-------
air supply. When this was rectified at 06.15, an immediate
response in gasifier bed depth and temperature was seen
indicating that fines were draining and being re-injected.
A steam supply and metering system was fabricated and
lined through to the gasifier plenum and lid.
Problems with leaks in the boiler gas sampling system
persisted and were traced to the joints on a glass moisture
knock out-vessel located in a cold box. Attempts were made
to eliminate these. Difficulties with the regenerator off
gas sampling system were also encountered due to leaks and
line plugging.
No readings were taken between 10.30 and 16.30 when
work was in hand to improve the stone feed and solids
handling systems.
23.11.75 : Day 3
With conditions lined out following the changes made
during Day 2, the steam feed lines were purged through and
the condensate drained in preparation for steam injection
into the gasifier. After increasing fuel flow into the
gasifier, steam injection was started at maximum rate at
04.45, and continued until 07.40. Results were inconclusive
and no significant change in the S02 level in the boiler
flue gas was observed. Doubts subsequently raised over the
functioning of the steam flow meter led to the results taken
during this period to be scrapped. Indeed, no further
readings of value were taken for the remainder of the day as
a number of difficulties occurred more or less together.
The stone feed system was out of action during virtually
the whole day with its typical behaviour of giving stone
delivery only for a short period immediately after cleaning
the hopper and vibrator.
The fines returns system, particularly the right hand
cyclone was still not collecting a'nd discharging fines
efficiently.
Serious leaks were found in the flue gas recycle
baghouse filter housing causing air ingress and the gasifier
bed temperature to rise when flue gas was being injected.
This was overcome by trimming the flue gas recycle flow
until it just leaked out of the filter, but under these
conditions, flow was restricted to 85 rrP/hr (50 cfm).
- 145 -
-------
The boiler off gas CC>2 meter was unserviceable and it
was replaced by the flue gas recycle CC>2 meter at 04.30. No
sensible reading could be obtained and it was suspected that
leaks of air into the system were still present.
The regenerator off gas sample line was plugged. The
blockage was traced to a stainless steel valve in which a
screw-in fitting partially blocked an internal channel thus
causing the valve to be susceptible to plugging when passing
unfiltered regenerator gas. The valve was modified to
eliminate the obstruction.
The regenerator suddenly defluidised for about two
hours. It eventually cleared itself, but left the regen-
erator bottom thermocouple reading approximately 30"C
lower than the middle and uppper thermocouples and an
accumulation of solid deposits above the regenerator
distributor was suspected. This supposition was supported
by loss of the regenerator lower pressure signal, the
pressure tapping being located adjacent to the lower
thermocouple.
24.11.75 : Day 4
Work continued until 04.30 on the problems identified
during Day 3- The gasifier Fuel Oil input was then reduced
by about 10% to reduce the carbon burden on the stone in
order to improve regenerator performance. Flue gas recycle
was started at the same time to prevent the bed temperature
rising too far. The gasifier bed temperature had dropped to
860"C when a main flame failure occurred at 05.40 without
obvious cause.
Attempts to restart were unsuccessful and a burn out
over a sulphided bed was carried out to clear the severely
restricted cyclone entry ports, particularly on the right
hand side. This was completed successfully and the gasifier
bed reheated in preparation for further gasification.
During the rebuild of the unit, air bleed jets had been
provided at the cyclone inlets to investigate whether
continuous carbon burn off could be effected. It was
evident that these were unsuccessful in preventing carbon
build up - no evidence of carbon removal around the jet
entries could be observed through the cyclone entry viewing
ports.
- 146 -
-------
It was found that the Fuel Oil circulation through the
secondary heating system had been cut off so that cold fuel
was being delivered into the gasifier. This was the likely
cause of the flame failure and the subsequent difficulties
of relighting; the fuel flow would be reduced and its
dispersal within the gasifier would be impaired.
Personnel from GCA technology arrived on site and
prepared equipment for an assessment of the emissions
released from the pilot unit.
25.11.75 : Day 5
Gasification was recommenced, and a boiler flame
established at 04.30 at the third attempt.
Low velocity conditions were established in the gasifier
with lean operation and a low stone feed rate. Sulphur
removal was low initially at 68% but improved to SQ% during
the day.
Though no flue gas was being recycled to the unit, the
recycle system through the baghouse filter was stopped at
06.40 to investigate the appearance of moisture on the
outside of the housing, gas leakage, and loss of pressure
drop across the filter bags.
The gasifier cyclone drains were working intermittently
during this time, resulting in transference of fines into
the boiler. The sulphur removal efficiency was low as a
consequence, and results confirmed the beneficial effect of
fines recirculation on sulphur removal performance. At the
same time, the stone feed system was giving its character-
istic erratic performance.
At 21.00, a leak was found on the second stage gasifier
blower casing, located downstream of the metering orifice
plate. It was repaired but no observable difference was
noticed on the pressure drop across the orifice plate.
Nevertheless, there was a small increase of about 10*C in
the gasifier bed temperature, equivalent to approximately \%
increase in the gasifier stoichiometry, or a 13.5 nP/hr
(8 cfm) air flow increase.
Thus, previous readings were taken to indicate a slight
over estimate of stoichiometry, and conditions in the
gasifier were in fact slightly richer than had been calcu-
lated.
- 147 -
-------
26.11.75 : Day 6
At 05.40, the fuel oil was decreased to run leaner at
the same bed velocity, and flue gas recycle was started into
the gasifier plenum to control the temperature.
Blockages were cleared in both cyclone drain legs
during the day and it was becoming apparent that a thorough
overhaul of this system was needed. Further problems later
in the day at 19-30, including malfunctioning of the control
sequencer boxes made a prolonged stoppage inevitable, and
the unit was shut down at 20.15. Prior to the shut down,
air and flue gas rates to the gasifier were increased to run
lean at higher velocity. A sharp increase in the Wosthoff
reading on the boiler flue gas from 380 to 470 ppm was
observed, but no explanation found. This continued to rise
to 600 ppm just prior to the shut down, and may have been
due to the failure of the fines collection system.
At 19.35, the gasifier temperature rose by 70°C due to
a major air leak into the baghouse filter.
A Hartmann and Braun SC>2 analyser was connected through
its own cooler unit to sample the boiler off gas, and it was
zeroed and spanned.
27.7.75 : Day 7
The cyclones were again cleared, the sequencer boxes
repaired and after reassembly, gasification was restarted at
03-00. A flame out occurred at 04.30. The fuel flow
control valve through the secondary heating system was found
closed again, so that the fuel delivery was cold. Correct
flow was re-instated and after checking both fuel and
air flows, a further restart was made at 07.15. A flame out
with immediate restart recurred at 08.15 and the flame was
subsequently maintained until 10.15.
Flows were again checked and confirmed, repairs were
made to regenerator and gasifier sampling lines and a new
temperature recorder installed to replace the main gasifier/
regenerator instrument which had become faulty.
Gasification recommenced at 15.00. It proved to be
impossible to get the regenerator functioning properly and
poor fluidisation and transfer were diagnosed. This resulted
eventually in a complete draining of the regenerator at
17.00, and a thorough clearing of the solids transfer ducts.
- 148 -
-------
A minor problem at 17-30 occurred when the nitrogen lance
become stuck in the gasifier to regenerator duct, and the
gasifier bed had to be slumped in order to retrieve it.
A further period of gasification ensued from 18.45
until 21.00 during which adjustments were made to boiler air
in an attempt to improve an unstable flame. No response was
observed from the regenerator.
It was decided to shut down at this stage in order to
further investigate the persistent problems which had been
troublesome from more or less the start of the run. Partic-
ular attention was to be given to the fines collection and
return systems, stone feed equipment, solids transfer system
and it was planned to remove the regenerator distributor for
examination.
28.11.75 : Day 8
The gasifier bed was sulphated and subsequently kept
hot using kerosine combustion. A burn-out was initiated to
clear all ducts and cyclones through to the boiler. Temper-
ature control in the gasifier during burn-out was poor due
to insufficient fluidising air. Increasing the air rate
stabilised the temperature.
54.5 kg (120 Ib) of gasifier bed were removed to drop
the bed level below the entry hole to the gasifier to
regenerator transfer duct. The regenerator was drained and
the distributor removed. Some hard lime deposits were found
adhering to the regenerator walls above the distributor, and
on the distributor itself. A new regenerator distributor
was cast from refractory with three fluidising nozzles to
replace the single top hat nozzle used until this time. It
was expected that this would provide better fluidisation of
the regenerator bed.
A tuyere was inserted through the low level warm up
propane burner to enable flue gas to be injected directly
into the gasifier bed above the distributor.
The stone feed hopper and vibrator were cleared out.
The problems associated with this equipment were traced to
accumulations of limestone dust underneath and around the
feet of the vibrator table damping the vibrating action.
Bleeds were installed to give purge air to blow the dust
away from these critical areas.
- 149 -
-------
29.11.75 : Day 9
The solids transfer ducts were cleared by rodding, and
an obstruction just below the pocket in the gasifier scraped
away. It was decided to install viewing ports into the
entry points in both gasifier and regenerator transfer duct
pockets and after locating the points for drilling on the
casing, jigs were made to support a water cooled, diamond
tipped drilling rig in the correct attitude. The fibrous
and insulating refractory were drilled out by hand up to the
hard, hot face refractory.
The drilling rig was positioned on the gasifier side
and a 2.5 cm (1 inch) diameter hole drilled through into the
gasifier post box. Entry was effected at 05.^5. A similar
hole was drilled into the regenerator post box by 07.15.
Sight glasses and valves were fitted at both locations.
The transfer ducts were rodded through again and the
lance was visible through both sight glasses indicating that
the ducts were free.
The cyclone drain systems were overhauled and procedural
changes made regarding their maintainence in order to
minimise the hold up of draining solids.
30.11.75 : Day 10
The new regenerator distributor was fitted and the air
supply, bleeds and pressure tapping fittings reconnected.
The gasifier bed was built up under combusting con-
ditions and stone circulation through the regenerator
started. It was not possible to fluidise the regenerator
bed until a massive air leak on one of the valves on the
air line was repaired. The cold bed was drained from the
regenerator and normal fluidisation and stone circulation
restored.
Fines recirculation through the gasifier cyclones were
improved but occasional blockages were still occurring.
1.12.75 : Day 11
Stone circulation between gasifier and regenerator was
still sluggish, though obviously much improved. Further
steps were taken to free the ducts but no obvious obstruction
- 150 -
-------
could be detected. An investigation was made of the effect
of transfer gas flow and pressure and it was found that a
large improvement was possible when running at a higher
transfer gas pressure. This gave an immediate improvement
in the regenerator temperature, showing efficient bed
circulation and the regenerator bed stabilised at 140'C
below the gasifier bed under combustion conditions.
All analytical systems were checked, zeroed and spanned,
By 18.00, the gasifier and boiler systems were being
checked out in preparation for gasification. Heavy Fuel Oil
was lined through to the left and right hand side (upper)
injectors and the delivery lines purged. A check on flow
rate was made and found to be marginally low in comparison
with the original pump calibrations.
12.2.75 : Day 12
Gasification was commenced at 05.10 following a strip
down of the cyclone drain lock hoppers. The internal chunk
traps were found partially blocked with large lumps of
carbon resulting from the two burn outs which had been
carried out. Points were noted where design improvements
could be made for future runs.
The regenerator gas sample line was cleared through
after a blockage was detected at 06.00.
The stone feed system was started at 09.25 but the
stone was found to be damp and would not flow so that the
system had to be emptied and refilled. It was restarted at
11.15.
Lean operations with a deep bed and low velocity were
established in the gasifier by about 09-30. Gasifier
temperature was at 900"C and a high stone feed rate (approx.
2 molar) was started when the stone feed system was ready.
Air flow to the gasifier was increased to maintain bed
temperature for the high stone rate. No flue gas was being
added. Sulphur removal efficiency was in excess of 80$
throughout.
The regenerator came on stream nicely at 07.00 and it
was obvious that the problems hitherto had been due to
operating the transfer system at too low a gas pressure.
A flame out occurred at 14.15 and several unsuccessful
attempts to restart were made until a relight was achieved
at 17.30 with adjusted gasifier air and fuel flows.
- 151 -
-------
A systematic investigation of the boiler flame stability
dependance on boiler primary, secondary, and main air
settings was started and the air flows adjusted to give the
optimum flame stability.
A short time cycle was in operation for the cyclone
drains and fines returns and the system seemed to be behaving
better than at any time so far. Similarly, there was some
improvement in the stone feed system after introducing purge
air streams around the vibrator table supports.
By the end of the day, it was very obvious that much
better control was available as the result of the changes
made during the shut down. The unit operation was stable and
all subsystems performance was much improved.
3.12.75 : Day 13
A series of different operating conditions were
established in the gasifier during the day. Initially,
conditions prevailing during the latter part of Day 12 were
continued until 04.30 when the bed velocity was increased to
run in a leaner mode. At 09-30, the stone feed system was
shut down and the bed velocity reduced to restore richer
operation. The bed depth dropped and the gasifier temper-
ature increased during this time.
At 13-30, further changes were made when a high stone
feed rate was started. There was a consequent drop in bed
temperature, and bed depth increased throughout the remainder
of the day.
Sulphur removal efficiency remained in excess of 80%
throughout.
Minor difficulties occurred in the fines returns system
but by 20.00 hrs these appeared to have been overcome and
the system stabilised nicely.
The solids transfer system was trouble free throughout
the day, the only attention required being to adjust the
circulation rate to maintain a high SC>2 level in the
regenerator off gas between 07.30 and 15.30.
At the end of the day, the flue gas recycle filter was
being purged in preparation for injecting flue gas via the
tuyere.
- 152 -
-------
4.12.75 : Day 14
The stone feed was stopped at 00.30 when the usual
control problems reappeared. Bed depth at this time was 130
cm. The gasifier temperature increased sharply and though
some adjustments were made to the A/F ratio, the gasifier
operated under lean conditions until 04.30 when flue gas
recycle was started via the tuyere and the fuel rate reduced
in order to maintain the gasifier bed temperature. Bed
velocity at this time was relatively high due to the flue
gas injection.
At 12.30, the final change of the day was made when
both air and fuel input were increased to further raise bed
velocity at fixed stoichiometry. The objective was to
establish the maximum gasifier output, and the limitation,
e.g. solids elutriation, boiler capacity, on further increase
in output. In the event, the restriction was found to be
the capacity of the gasifier air system and with the existing
bed depth (123 cm) the maximum air rate possible was only
343 m3/hr. Fuel rate was 128 kg/hr and the air/fuel ratio
27.4$ stoichiometric. Lean operation at high bed velocity
resulted.
These conditions were maintained throughout the
remainder of the day, and preparations were made to commence
injection of fuel oil into the distributor pit.
5.12.75 : Day 15
Day 14 running conditions were continued until 05.30.
For the remainder of the day, lean operation at a high bed
velocity applied. No stone was added throughout the day and
a relatively low bed depth developed as a result. This was
accompanied by a gradual deterioration in sulphur removal
efficiency from 70$ to 60% approximately.
At 03.10, the right hand plenum fuel oil injector was
inserted through a shallow trough in the distributor refrac-
tory. No difficulty was experienced. Fuel Oil injection
was commenced into the pit and an equivalent amount backed
off the side injectors. No change in performance was
observed and this process was continued in rapid stepwise
fashion until all the Fuel Oil was injected in the distrib-
utor pit. Experiments were conducted varying the air used
to carry the Fuel Oil into the bed, and the penetration of
the injector into the pit from flush with the wall to its
maximum insertion of 12.5 cm (5 inch) when it encountered
the vertical central injector. No significant change in
- 153 -
-------
performance could be observed, and the injector was withdrawn
so that the entry was flush with the pit wall (09-15). This
prevented overheating. It remained in this position until
the end of the run.
Flue gas was lined through to the tuyere, and the steam
supply system purged in preparation for steam injection.
The regenerator remained in action throughout the day
and no problems were encountered with the cyclone drains and
fines returns system.
6.12.75 : Day 16
Steam injection was started shortly after midnight at
39 kg/hr (86 Ib/hr). At this time, lean operation in a
relatively shallow bed (98 cm) had stabilised. Flue gas
recycle (through the plenum) was stopped to limit the
temperature loss expected for the gasifier bed. The SC>2
level in the boiler off gas increased over a period of about
half an hour from 440 to 560 ppm suggesting that the detri-
mental effect of steam on sulphur removal efficiency is time
dependant. Steam was shut off at 04.07 and there was an
immediate drop in SC>2 level to 280 ppm.
The air rate to the gasifier was reduced at 05-30 to
run richer and when conditions were stable, steam injection
was restarted at 40 kg/hr (88 Ib/hr) at 06.44. The SC>2
level in the boiler flue gas increased to approximately 600
ppm, and dropped to 500 ppm when steam was shut off at
09.47.
It was clear that steam injection caused poor sulphur
removal, and that the effect was greater under richer
operation.
Following this experiment, conditions were lined out
with a gasifier temperature of 955"C without flue gas
injection, with a low bed velocity. These conditions
prevailed until the end of the day.
No limestone had been added to the bed since midnight
on Day 13, and the fines returns system had worked well
throughout. The attrition rate for bed material was
calculated at 2.2 kg/hr (4.8 Ib/hr) average.
- 154 -
-------
12.7.75 : Day 17
A main flame failure occurred at 05.10 due to seizure
of the centre fuel pump. The gasifier bed was sulphated and
a burn out started at 06.00 to clear carbon accumulations
from the cyclone inlets and ducts.
At 15.00, the gasifier and regenerator were refluidised
and it was necessary to rod out the solids transfer ducts to
restore circulation.
The gasifier plenum inspection cover was removed at
23.^5 and a small quantity of Lime - 16 kg (35 Ib) - removed
showing that stone fall back through the distributor was
minimal, particularly in view of the frequent bed slumps
which had occurred. The nozzles themselves were cleared
using a nitrogen supply, but no change in air flow rate or
pressure drop was subsequently observed, indicating that no
nozzle blockage had occurred.
8.12.75 : Day 18
Modifications were made to the flue gas recycle and
gasifier air systems at 02.15 to arrange the blowers in
series thus permitting the gasifier air to be boosted to 240
cfm, and a further small additional improvement was possible
by optimising the boiler blower output.
A blockage in the flue gas recycle tuyere was cleared
at 04.15 but no flue gas recycle was initiated into the
gasifier bed.
Gasification was recommenced at 06.10 using a fuel
supply through the right hand plenum injector only. A
first time light up was obtained without any difficulty.
The limestone feed system was started at 06.35 to replenish
the bed which had dropped in level to 91 cm. Problems with
this system persisted.
The transfer system seemed to be working satisfactorily,
and the regenerator came on stream at 09-30.
From 13.00, the Bitumen supply system was being prepared
for use. The Bitumen in the storage tank was heated to
180*C using the gas oil fired tunnel burners and steam was
lined through the Bitumen ring main jacket and condensate
drained. Bitumen circulation through the ring main was
started at 15.00.
- 155 -
-------
The twin Bitumen injection pumps were started up at
16.10 to purge the Bitumen delivery system through to the
injector. Unfortunately, at this point the system was
closed down temporarily and on restart, it was found that
both pump filters were plugged with cold Bitumen and a
filter by-pass had to be installed, trace heated and lagged.
9.12.75 : Day 19
The Bitumen delivery pumps were calibrated by delivering
Bitumen through the supply lines to the right hand plenum
injector. At this point, it was found that the pump delivery
on maximum setting was about twice what was required, and
moveover, the scale for indicating pump delivery was very
coarse. Thus, flow rate could be set only very approximately
according to the pump and it was necessary in practice to
calculate the Bitumen flow from the boiler flue gas analysis.
Bitumen injection into the unit was started at 02.00 on
the right hand plenum injector only, and by 02.30 the
gasifier was running on 100/S Bitumen. The Heavy Fuel Oil
system was shut down.
Almost immediately, the boiler S02 reading increased
to 1000 ppm, there was a decrease in boiler oxygen from 5%
to 3-5%, and the regenerator C02 increased sharply with
corresponding loss of SC>2 generation indicating over-rich
operations. The Bitumen rate was reduced at 02.45 and a
decrease in boiler SC>2 level to 800 ppm followed indicating
approximately 70% sulphur removal. However, the regenerator
performance did not recover, and attention had to be given
to the sample lines which were plugged.
At 10.00, 61 kg (134 Ib) of stone were withdrawn from
the regenerator, and the stone feed system started to
replenish the bed. The carbon level remained high despite
further trimming of the Bitumen rate and the regenerator did
not recover.
A disturbing problem arose when it was observed that
the boiler water temperature was increasing steadily. An
immediate shut down was not necessary but by 15.00 the
temperature had built up to 120°C and a shut down became
inevitable. The heat exchanger was the primary suspect for
causing the temperature increase.
Preparations were started for a burn back • i.e.
burning off the accumulated carbon deposits from the boiler
- 156 -
-------
end of the product gas ducting. It was initiated at 18.30
by closing the stack damper, thus causing a boiler air flow
back into the gasifier and out through a vent provided in
the gasifier lid. Steam was injected to cool the vent pipe
whilst the burn back was in progress. The gasifier bed was
slumped during this operation.
10.12.75 : Day 20
The burn back continued until it became apparent that
the carbon deposits in the cyclones were not being attacked.
The stack damper was opened, the gasifier bed vent closed
and a normal burn out started with intermittent combustion
in the gasifier to reheat as necessary. This was completed
at 08.00 and it was apparent by visual inspection through
the sight glasses that the cyclone entries and internal
surfaces were burned clean.
Whilst the burn out was in progress, the flue gas
recycle filter bags were examined and found to be covered
with a cake of damp fines about 1 cm thick. No solids
draining was possible as the drain hopper was packed with
wet fines. There were also several large leaks on the
filter housing.
This equipment was given a thorough overhaul.
At 09.00 the bed was reheated and the regenerator
refluidised after rodding from the top to break up stone and
carbon accretions. The carbon burn in the regenerator was
obvious when viewed through the regenerator overhead viewing
port. The transfer ducts were also checked.
Gasification was initiated on Bitumen fuel at 20.30. A
first time light up after 17 seconds was obtained. The
regenerator came on stream at midnight.
The flue gas recycle filter was warmed up and at 23.00
flue gas was injected via the tuyere system at 50 m^/hr
(30 cfm). This was increased to 23-30, this was increased
to 63 m3/hr (40 cfm).
A leak was repaired in the boiler gas sampling system
at 04.30 and this recurred at 05.30 requiring the moisture
trap to be dismantled. Oxygen levels during this period
were taken to be those pertaining when the blockages occurred
since no fuel or air flow changes were made.
- 157 -
-------
1 1 . 12.75 : Day 21
Bitumen gasification continued until 09.45 when a plant
shut down was forced by a recurrence of excessive temper-
ature in the boiler primary cooling system. Relatively few
difficulties were experienced during the gasification
period.
Flue gas recycle flow was increased to 76 m3/hr (45
cfm) at 01.00 and to 85 m3/hr (50 cfm) at 03-30. Through-
out the period, lean operating conditions with a high
gasifier bed temperature in a low bed applied.
Following the 09-45 shut down, the Bitumen system
downstream of the pump was purged with gas oil and checks
around the boiler cooling system were started. No obvious
reason for the excessive temperature excursions could be
determined. Provisions were made to improve the boiler pump
delivery pressure monitoring system and a successful restart
was made on Bitumen at 14.45.
By 20.00, the boiler water temperature was at 116*C and
increasing. Pump performance was satisfactory both for the
primary and secondary water circulation systems, and it was
concluded that the problem lay with the heat exchanger. At
20.30, the plant was shut down again with the boiler water
at 118.5"C.
12.12.75 : Day 22
The final experiment planned for the run was to
establish in principle whether coal could be injected and
gasified successfully. To enable tests to be conducted, a
simple coal feed system was constructed using the flue gas
recycle tuyere as the injector, and feeding coal via a weir
system and fluidiser similar in operation to the system used
for fines re-injection. The metered coal would be pneu-
matically conveyed into the gasifier bed. Above the weir
system, coal was fed through a manually replenished lock
hopper.
This temporary arrangement was considered sufficient to
establish the necessary information as a preliminary step to
designing and constructing a more complicated, automatic
feed system.
The equipment was assembled and was ready for use at
06.30.
- 158 -
-------
Bitumen gasification was started, again without diffi-
culty, at 07.45, and the coal system primed with a supply of
Illinois No.6. Initially, the particle size range was 1400
ji down but other particle size ranges were also available
for testing.
Between 08.00 and 15.45, a variety of coal particle
size ranges, and feed rates were tried with about 50% of the
fuel input being provided by Bitumen.
Major difficulties were encountered with the simple
coal feed system, particularly with respect to maintaining a
uniform feed rate into the bed. However, the experiment was
successful in demonstrating that coal could be injected and
gasification could be maintained at a rate sufficient to
maintain a stable flame in the boiler. Coal feed rates of
approximately 97.5 kg (215 Ib/hour) were estimated from the
boiler gas analysis.
At 14.50, the coal system failed when a valve jammed
and unsuccessful attempts were made to feed coal via the
limestone injection system.
The unit was shut down finally at 15-45 and all systems
secured for the cooling off stage.
TEST DATA
The major test results for periods when steady conditions
prevailed are given in Tables C1-C11.
Table C12 summarises the gasification periods for the
various fuels tested, and where possible identifies the
reasons for shut down.
Fig. C34 is a chronological plot of unit performance
during Run 10.
PERFORMANCE OF EQUIPMENT DURING RUN 10
Introduction
Reference has been made in Appendix A to the design
basis, construction and materials of the CAFB pilot unit
used during Run 10. Whilst comments on the inspection of
the unit and equipment after Run 10 are provided later, the
performance of major items of equipment is described below.
- 159 -
-------
1. The Gasifier Distributor
This was designed with a central pit to provide pro-
tection for fuel injectors which could be inserted through
the refractory wall into the central depression. Included
were fluidising nozzles of a new design to minimise the fall
back of the lime bed into the gasifier plenum, a phenomenon
which tends to occur during the time the gasifier bed is
being slumped.
The distributor with its associated nozzles proved to
be very successful in all respects. Fuel injectors could be
withdrawn and inserted very easily through any lime accumul-
ations in the channels and excellent fluidisation was
achieved with virtually no lime fall back with the new
nozzle.
2 . The Regenerator Distributor
Initially a top hat design was used but this was
changed during the run to a three nozzle type due to poor
fluidisation performance. In fact, both designs were
probably quite satisfactory in operation, the problems
encountered arising from an accumulation of deposit attached
to the regenerator lower thermocouple and pressure tapping
immediately above the distributor.
3 . The Refractory Insulation
This was designed to minimise heat losses and escape
of product gases from the gasifier, regenerator, cyclones
and gas ducting.
The gasifier and regenerator refractory was constructed
in layers of different refractory types (see Appendix A) and
the fibrous layer immediately adjacent to the steel shell
could be purged with nitrogen. In the event, the skin
temperature was sufficiently low not to be uncomfortable to
the touch and no serious gas leaks occurred.
The cyclones and product gas ducts leading to the
boiler were lined with refractory but not of the same
layered construction as the main vessels. No purge was
provided. Thus they ran rather hotter than the gasifier
regenerator shell, but were still not too hot to touch. No
gas leaks were observed except initially round the cyclone
lids. These were sealed with asbestos and refractory and
any remaining small gas leaks were quickly eliminated by
carbon lay down in service.
- 160 -
-------
4. The Main Gasifier Cyclones and Drains
These were designed with an external snail entry to
provide high efficiency of particle collection with large
gas flows and low pressure drop. They performed well
throughout the run in cleaning the product gas stream before
the boiler except when problems were encountered with the
draining of fines out of the cyclones into the re-injection
system.
Here, one of the major difficulties was caused by a
chunk trap, used to protect the re-injection system from
blockage which allowed chunks to accumulate in such a
position that they interfered with the discharge of the
fines from the cyclones.
5. The Flue Gas Recycle Bag House Filter
This system proved very troublesome throughout the run.
The major difficulty was found to be the accumulation of a
damp cake of particulates on the fabric of the bag filter
during the period when the system was being warmed up. This
was sufficiently severe to cause serious restriction in the
recirculation rate for flue gas due to the resultant increase
in the pressure drop across the filter.
Problems were experienced in draining solids out of the
filter housing, again because of moisture and a drain hopper
of inappropriate design to allow discharge of the wet
solids.
Serious leakage of gas from the housing of the filter
also occurred throughout the run.
6. The Solids Transfer System
This proved troublesome only during the early part of
the run until the causes of poor gasifier to regenerator bed
transfer could be identified and eliminated.
Partial blockage of the transfer ducts, particularly
the gasifier to regenerator occurred probably due to con-
densation during the early phases of the warm up and bed
addition. This greatly reduced the transfer rate of bed
material, and a further, but lesser problem was the slight
reduction in duct cross sectional area when the regenerator
and gasifier refractories expanded and moved relative to
each other.
- 161 -
-------
The difficulties were fairly easily overcome by rodding
out the ducts until they eventually cleared, and by increasing
the pressure of the nitrogen used as the transfer medium.
7. The Boiler Gas Sampling System
This was very troublesome throughout the run. It was
very prone to springing leaks at the interconnections
between the glass vessels used as the moisture knock out
system, the condensate was difficult to drain except by
completely dismantling the assembly, and the cooler in which
the equipment was located occasionally iced up completely
due to defective temperative control features.
8. The Limestone Feed Vibrating Table
This did not perform consistently throughout. The
difficulty experienced was due to excessive damping of the
vibrator by accumulations of limestone fines around the
flexible supports, and packing underneath the table itself.
Air jets were installed to reduce this and whilst an improve-
ment was observed, the performance was still inadequate.
9. Gas Analysers
The Maihak analysers, in particular the boiler CC>2
analyser, required constant attention. The boiler CC>2
analyser eventually became unserviceable during the run.
The gas sampling limes to the analytical trains were
difficult to trace and leaks proved very troublesome to
identify and rectify.
INSPECTION OF UNIT AFTER RUN 10
Introduction
Run 10 was carried out with a completely refabricated
unit and there was more than usual interest in the post run
strip down and inspection to examine the refractory and
other internals. Reference to the run log (see above)
indicates that the refractory had been subjected to high
temperature condition at up to 900"C for a total of approx-
imately 700 hours, including the refractory curing period.
- 162 -
-------
Throughout the operation, shutdowns caused cycling of
temperatures from time to time which would tend to aggravate
any tendencies of the refractory to crack and spall.
At the end of the run, the unit was shut down and
cooled with a sulphided bed immediately following a period
when a bitumen/coal mix was used to fuel the gasifier. No
burn out was carried out.
Results of Inspection
Gasifier Lid
The only damage visible was to the insulating fibrous
refractory immediately below the steel plate, see Fig. C1.
This was caused when the asbestos and refractory packing
were inserted to seal the lid.
Gasifier Bed
Fig. C2 shows the overhead view of the gasifier bed
prior to its removal. The surface is littered with debris
(refractory and asbestos rope) falling from the lid surrounds
during dismantling.
The bulk of the gasifier bed was free of any agglomer-
ates and was blackish-brown in colour due to the shut down
being in the gasification mode, and the presence of ungasified
coal.
Gasifier Vessel
Fig. C3 shows the internal condition of the gasifier
after removal of the lime bed.
Clearly seen is the dark polished surface produced by
the fluidised bed, extending to above the gasifier entry to
the transfer duct to the regenerator.
Also shown is a build up of deposit above the gasifier
distributor and covering several of the fluidising nozzles.
The central pit fuel injector is covered with a carbon-
aceous deposit.
The end of the flue gas recyle tuyere is visible and it
can be seen that this has been damaged and burnt during the
run.
- 163 -
-------
Gasifier Refractory
This was generally in excellent condition with only a
few cracks of no major signficance visible. No spalling or
other damage to the surface could be observed.
Fig. C4 shows the largest crack, between the gasifier
and regenerator vessels, where it was widest across the
sealing land of the gasifier lid. (Other minor cracks are
shown in following photographs).
Cyclone Entries
Fig. C5 shows the cyclone entry ports. Again, some
minor cracks had developed and heavy flaky carbon deposits
had accummulated in both entries. Details of the right hand
cyclone entry are shown in Figs. C6 and C8 and the left hand
entry in Figs. C7 and C9- It is suspected that the crack
visible in the right hand cyclone formed during the shut
down as it is clean and extends through the carbon layer
whereas in the left hand cyclone port the crack, which is
plugged with carbon and lime, was probably formed whilst the
gasifier was hot and in service.
Views looking down the ducts are shown in Figs. C10
(right hand) and C11 (left hand) showing the extent and the
flaky nature of the carbon deposits laid down. Some of
these would have peeled off the walls and roof of the ducts
during the cooling off phase.
Transfer System Entry Port - Gasifier
Fig. C12 shows clearly an accumulation of deposit in the
right hand side of the gasifier entry port to the transfer
duct carrying material to the regenerator. A partial view
of the duct can be seen behind this deposit.
The transfer line from the gasifier to the regenerator
was partially blocked at a point approximately 30 cm (12
inch) below the port at the interface between the gasifier
and regenerator refractory monoliths. The overlap was
estimated to be approximately 0.3 mm (1/8") cold but could
be considerably greater when the unit was hot, depending on
the relative movement of the two monoliths. The lower
discharge port into the regenerator was clear of deposits,
but the rodding port into the transfer line was misaligned.
These deficiencies undoubtedly contributed to the problems
encountered with bed transfer during the run.
- 164 -
-------
Gasifier Distributor
Fig. C13 gives a general view of the gasifier distributor
after Run 10. Clearly visible is the channel through which
the right hand fuel injector could be inserted, and the
central injection point in the pit floor.
The refractory was in excellent condition generally,
with only slight damage visible where flaking and minor
cracking had occurred at the fuel injector entries, on the
outside face of the distributor refractory, probably due to
the relatively thin sectional area at this point. They can
be seen more clearly in Figs. C14 and C15.
Fig. C16 shows a close-up of the gasifier distributor
pit and the hole through which the right hand injector was
inserted is visible. Also seen is the erosion which occurred
due to the injected fuel on the pit wall, and the blocked
holes in the fluidising air nozzles. Approximately 30% of
the nozzle holes were plugged at the end of the run
Gasifier Plenum
This was in excellent condition but contained lime
which had fallen back through the fluidising nozzles, and
also quantities of tarry deposits caused by seepage of fuel
down the central pit nozzle.
Regenerator
The regenerator refractory was in excellent condition
with no evidence of serious cracking or spalling - Fig. C17.
Regenerator Distributor
Figs. C18 and C19 show the accumulations of material
above the regenerator distributor. This is attributed to
condensation in the cooler, lower regions of the regenerator
during the warm-up. The lower portion of the regenerator is
difficult to heat using hot gas circulation and condensed
moisture tends to accumulate here. Entry of hot stone from
the gasifier contacting the relatively damp walls above the
regenerator plenum can then produce the accretions observed.
These deposits were found to be anchored firmly by the lower
pressure tapping and thermocouple fittings protruding into
the regenerator above the plenum.
Regenerator to Gasifier Transfer Line
As for the gasifier, the regenerator transfer port was
found to be partially blocked by deposit, and the rodding
- 165 -
-------
port was misaligned. There was no evidence of a displacement
of the regenerator and gasifier refactory monoliths partly
blocking the transfer duct.
Entries
A number of entries into the unit was found to be
plugged at the end of the run:
Gasifier pit vertical central fuel injector.
Gasifier upper and lower drain ports.
Upper fuel injection points in the gasifier.
Limestone feed entry was partially plugged.
Regenerator lower pressure tapping.
Regenerator drain port.
Two thermocouples, viz at the gasifier lid, and at the
product gas cylone cross duct lid were unserviceable.
Product Gas Ducts and Cylones
Figs. C20-23 show the components of the right hand
cyclone after dismantling. Simlar pictorial evidence of the
state of the left hand cyclone is shown in Figs. C24-27.
The cyclone entries and exits are characterised by
heavy accumulations of flaky carbon deposits, plus some
lime, notably at the cyclone inlets, though there was no
evidence of restricted gas flow as indicated by the gasifier
overhead space pressure. The silicon carbide off-take ducts
were intact. The cyclones themselves, and the small collect-
ing hoppers were virtually free of deposits except along the
upper surfaces.
Cyclone Fines Recirculation
Fig. C28 shows the left hand fines drain lock hopper
with its perforated plate chunk trap in place. This was
found to be badly distorted and punctured at the end of the
run, and virtually empty of any carbon chunks - a selection
of those found is shown on the hopper flange. This chunk
trap is thought to have been virtually inoperative, certainly
towards the end of the run.
Fig. C29 shows the corresponding right hand lock hopper
and trap, and the considerable quantities of chunks retained.
- 166 -
-------
A further deficiency of the system was that the retained
pieces of carbon accumulated on the perforated plate immedi-
ately above the drain point at the bottom of the lock
hopper, thereby considerably hampering the discharge flow of
solids.
Boiler Back
Figs. C30 and C31 show general view of the back of the
boiler. Some accumulation of material is obvious but this
was less than for previous runs. The first pass gas tubes
were generally clear and contained only small quantities of
dust.
Figs. C32 and C33 show the second pass gas tubes, again
these were found to be unrestricted.
A total of 386 Kg (852 Ib) of material was collected
from the back of the boiler at the end of the run.
- 167 -
-------
FIG. C1 GASIFIER LID
FIG. C2 OVERHEAD VIEW OF GASIFIER BEFORE BED REMOVAL
- 168 -
-------
FIG. C3 OVERHEAD VIEW OF GASIFIER AFTER BED REMOVAL
FIG. C4 REFRACTORY CRACK BETWEEN GASIFIER AND REGENERATOR
- 169 -
-------
FIG. C5 CYCLONE ENTRY PORTS GENERAL VIEW
- 170 -
-------
FIG. C6 RIGHT HAND CYCLONE ENTRY PORT
FIG. C7 LEFT HAND CYCLONE ENTRY PORT
- 171 -
-------
—q
I
of-.
**«
FIG. C8 RIGHT HAND CYCLONE ENTRY PORT
SHOWING DEPTH OF CARBON DEPOSIT
FIG. C9 LEFT HAND CYCLONE ENTRY PORT
SHOWING DEPTH OF CARBON DEPOSIT
-------
FIG. C10 RIGHT HAND CYCLONE DUCT
FIG. C11 LEFT HAND CYCLONE DUCT
-------
1 ' . s*
1 "> fc- **>, • *l&tl. \ .Jt •- -
FIG. C12 GASIFIER TO REGENERATOR TRANSFER DUCT ENTRY
IN GASIFIER
FIG. C13 GASIFIER AIR DISTRIBUTOR, GENERAL VIEW
-------
FIG. C14 V-CHANNEL PLENUM FUEL
INJECTOR ENTRY
- 175 -
-------
FIG. C15 PLENUM FUEL INJECTOR ENTRY HOLE
FIG. C16 GASIFIER DISTRIBUTOR PIT SHOWING FUEL JET EROSION
OF WALL AND PLUGGED NOZZLES
- 176 -
-------
-J
—3
FIG. C17 REGENERATOR WITH THE
DISTRIBUTOR IN PLACE
FIG. C18 REGENERATOR DISTRIBUTOR SHOWING
LIME ACCUMULATION
-------
-a
CO
FIG. C19 REGENERATOR DISTRIBUTOR
SHOWING LIME ACCUMULATION
FIG. C20 RIGHT HAND CYCLONE EXIT SHOWING
SILICON CARBIDE TUBE AND
CARBON DEPOSITS
-------
m
m
w
FIG. C21 RIGHT HAND CYCLONE LID
FIG. C22 RIGHT HAND CYCLONE ENTRY
- 179 -
-------
CD
o
FIG. C23 INTERNAL VIEW OF RIGHT HAND
CYCLONE SHOWING COLLECTION
POT
FIG. C24 LEFT HAND CYCLONE EXIT SHOWING
SILICON CARBIDE TUBE AND
CARBON DEPOSITS
-------
FIG. C25 LEFT HAND CYCLONE LID
FIG. C26 LEFT HAND CYCLONE ENTRY
-------
FIG. C27 INTERNAL VIEW OF LEFT HAND
CYCLONE SHOWING COLLECTION POT
- 182 -
-------
..-**-•*"**• <
-Tr,*
••*»•*'« -V
5**l*il****Ji-,-^'
FIG. C28 LEFT HAND CYCLONE DRAIN HOPPER WITH PERFORATED
PLATE CHUNK TRAP SHOWING DAMAGE
FIG. C29 RIGHT HAND CYCLONE DRAIN HOPPER WITH PERFORATED
PLATE CHUNK TRAP AND RETAINED MATERIAL
- 183 -
-------
FIG. C30 BOILER BACK, GENERAL VIEW
- 184 -
-------
FIG. C31 BOILER BACK SHOWING CLOSE-UP OF FIRST PASS FIRE
TUBE ENTRIES
- 185 -
-------
00
I
»'• * «
!»••**
FIG. C32 BOILER BACK RIGHT HAND SIDE
SHOWING SECOND PASS FIRE TUBE
EXITS
FIG. C33 BOILER BACK LEFT HAND SIDE
SHOWING SECOND PASS FIRE
TUBE EXITS
-------
- 187 -
-------
RUN 10J
APPENDIX Ci TABLE 1,
TEMPERATURES AND FEED RATES
PAGE 1 OF 6
DAY.HOUR TEMPERATURE? DEC.
GASIFIER REGEN. RECYCLE
C, FEED RATE KG/HR
CYCLONES OIL STONE"
1.0130
1.0230
1,0330
1.0430
1,0530
1.0630
1.0730
1.0830
1,0930
1.1030
1.1130
1.1230
1,1330
1.1430
1.1530
1.1630
1.1730
1.1830
1,1930
1.2030
1,2130
1,2230
1.2330
2.0030
2.0130
2,0230
2,0330
2,0430
2.0530
2 . 0630
2.0730
2.0330
2.0930
2.1030
945.
952.
928.
962.
940.
900,
875,
885.
920,
922 ,
940,
942,
920,
905.
900.
905.
905.
907.
920.
910,
918.
930,
913,
900,
915.
928.
940.
960.
952,
958,
963.
952.
952.
955,
1020.
1027.
1022.
1055.
1055.
1055.
1055.
1055.
1055.
1055,
1055,
1055,
1052,
1055.
1045.
1053.
1055.
1055.
1055,
1052.
1043.
1050.
1045.
1047,
1050.
1052,
1055,
1055,
1055,
1055,
1057,
1055,
1055,
1056,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
255.
268.
258.
329.
316,
278,
310.
390,
385,
387.
413,
4.10, '
390.
345.
428.
381 ,
443.
425,
320,
315,
315 .
3 5 / ,
303,
353,
356.
362 ,
316 ,
295,
213,
178,
173,
134,
114.
82.
133,6
133.6
133 . 6
133 , 6
133.6
133.6
133.6
133,6
1 %i3 , Ci
133,6
133,6
136,1
136.1
136.5
136.5
135.3
135. 3
135.3
135 , 3
135,3
1 35 « 3
135,3
135,3
135,3
135,3
135,3
135 , 3
135,3
139.4
139.4
139.4
139.4
139.4
139.4
0.
4.5
22.7
10.0
53 , 3
67,1
34,9
44,5
0,
0,
0,
6,8
13.6
27,4
26,8
23.6
23.1
19.5
18.6
20.0
0 ,
5,9
24 .9
33.1
0,
8,2
0,
3,4
3,4
=: o
%j , /
3 . 6
2,3
0,
0,
SHUT DOWN AT 2,1030 FOR
2,1630
2,1730
932,
952,
1055.
1060,
6 HOURS
0.
0,
270,
305,
143,5
143,9
•5 . ^'
0 .5
- 188 -
-------
APPENDIX C: TABLE 1.
RUN 101 TEMPERATURES AND FEED RATES PAGE
2 OF 6
DAY,HOUR TEMPERATURE, DEG. C, FEED RATE KG/HR
GASIFIER REGEN, RECYCLE CYCLONES OIL STONE.
2.1830
2,1930
2.2.030
2,2130
2.2230
2.2330
SHUT
5.0630
5.0730
5.0830
5,0930
5,1030
5,1130
5,1230
5,1330
5,1430
5.1530
5,1630
5,1730
5,1330
5.1930
5,2030
5,2130
5,2230
5,2330
6,0030
6,0130
6,0230
6.0330
6,0430
6.0530
6,0630
6,0730
6,0830
6,0930
6,1030
6,1130
962,
960,
955.
955.
950.
960.
DOWN AT
905,
925.
932.
932,
922,
920,
925,
910.
898,
880,
900,
904,
892,
895,
893,
898.
910.
916,
915,
917.
925,
940,
938,
932,
910,
915,
920,
922.
920,
92.2.
1065,
1072,
1072,
1075,
1075,
1075.
2.2330 FOR
1015,
1032,
1060,
1070,
1066,
1060,
1063,
1060,
1052,
1056,
1055,
1060,
1060,
1058.
1065.
1065.
1070.
1075.
1075,
1077.
1078.
1085.
1032.
1082.
1090.
1080.
1063,
1063,
1067,
1067,
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
54
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
20,
35,
50.
58.
55.
50.
50,
45,
278,
263,
258,
250,
265,
250,
HOURS
145.
275.
260.
250.
245,
233,
243,
363 ,
220,
203.
203,
150.
180.
200,
185.
203.
213.
225,
270,
235,
235.
245,
210.
215.
193.
188.
195.
160,
130.
108,
143,5
154.3
154 , 3
154,3
154.3
154,3
112,2
112.2
112.2
119.2
12.2.1
122.1
122.1
122.1
132.8
132.8
132.8
129,5
129,5
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
129.5
129,5
129,5
129,5
116,7
101,9
101.9
101.9
101 .9
101,9
103,5
103,5
0,
5.9
4.1
12.7
6.8
0.
7.5
6. 1
4.1
11.1
7.0
5.0
3,6
1.8
5,9
20.0
16,8
11,8
j.0,4
11.8
12.2
12.7
6.8
6 , 6
8,6
7.9
1.8
1,1
1,1
3,2
4 , 5
5.0
3,2
4.8
19.3
1 7 . 5
- 189 -
-------
RUN 10 :
APPENDIX C: TABLE
TEMPERATURES AND FEED RATES
PAGE 3 OF 6
DAY,HOUR TEMPERATURE» DEC*
GASIFIER REGEN, RECYCLE
C, FEED RATE KG/HR
CYCLONES OIL STONE
6,1230
6,1330
6,1430
SHUT
12,0530
12.0630
12,0730
12,0330
12.0930
12.1030
12,1130
12,1230
12,1330
SHUT
12.1830
12,1930
12.2030
12.2130
12.2230
12.2330
13.0030
13.0130
13,0230
13.0330
13,0430
13.0530
13,0630
13,0730
13,0830
13.0930
13.1030
13.1130
13,1230
13,1330
928,
930,
934,
DOWN AT
900,
918,
910,
882,
908,
938,
920,
936,
914,
DOWN AT
905.
903.
895,
890,
888,
900,
906,
914.
884,
880,
864,
898,
938,
910.
895,
925,
956.
958.
925,
915.
1066.
1070.
1070.
6.1430 FOR
1000.
1025.
1043,
1052,
1065,
1076,
1082,
1087,
1035.
12,1330 FOR
1058.
1054,
1047.
1037,
1035,
1035,
1045.
1050,
1018,
1028,
1032.
1038,
1054.
1047.
1045.
1047.
1077,
1084,
1055,
1060,
45,
42,
45,
134
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
5
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
o.
0.
0,
0,
70,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
38,
78,
70,
HOURS
290.
286.
282,
382.
346,
322,
359,
3.14,
401 ,
HOURS
393,
455,
447,
445,
460,
455,
430,
330 ,
505,
500,
455,
460,
555,
525,
410,
253.
193,
203,
157,
140,
104,3
104.3
110,5
142.3
127,0
136,5
135,7
142.3
142,3
142,3
142,3
142,3
121 .7
134,5
133 , 6
133,6
135,3
133,6
133,2
1 33 « 6
135.3
135,3
135,7
135,7
132.8
133.2
134.5
131,6
131,6
131,6
131,6
1 3 1 , 6
6.4
4 « 8
3.9
0.
0,
23.8
45,4
0,
1 .8
13.8
23.4
9.3
23,6
22,0
22.0
25,4
22,2
17,9
24.9
17.2
24,3
33.3
29,9
27,9
29,7
0*
13,2
3,2
0.
0,
0,
24,7
- 190 -
-------
APPENDIX C: TABLE 1,
RUN 10t TEMPERATURES AND FEED RATES PAGE
4 OF 6
DAY. HOUR
13.1430
13.1530
13,1630
13.1730
13,1330
13.1930
13.2030
13.2130
13.2230
13.2330
14.0030
14,0130
14.0230
14.0330
14.0430
14.0530
14.0630
14.0730
14.0830
14.0930
14.1030
14.1130
14.1230
14.1330
14.1430
14.1530
14.1630
14.1730
14.1830
14,1930
14.2030
14.2130
14*2230
14,2330
15.0030
15.0130
15.0230
15.0330
15,0430
15,0530
TEMPERATURE, DEG.
GASIFIER
912.
908.
905.
902.
900.
905.
893,
892,
897,
898.
910.
935.
942.
946.
948.
924.
934.
930.
927,
930,
935,
928,
885.
885,
888,
902,
916,
918,
920,
920,
920,
920.
922,
921.
924.
925.
932.
937,
920,
928.
REGEN.
1062.
1054.
1058,
1062,
1064,
1055,
1044.
1035.
1046.
1058.
1068.
1105.
1 082. .
1060,
1100,
1115,
1110,
1100.
1102.
1100.
1065,
1068,
1075,
1078,
1062,
1050,
1055.
1062.
1045.
1035,
1034,
1033.
1040,
1070.
1070.
1070.
1072.
1075,
1068.
1068.
RECYCLE
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
70.
SO,
80,
80.
75,
70.
70.
75.
80.
80.
90,
90.
90.
90.
85,
85.
85.
85.
85.
85.
85,
85.
85.
85.
85.
C.
CYCLONES
170.
195,
255.
210.
193,
330,
475,
440,
448,
460,
440,
438,
433,
425.
463.
448.
450.
413.
393.
380,
368.
410,
428.
410,
400.
400.
398.
400.
380.
373,
-1' IT." C"
OUU *
350,
338.
343.
338.
308.
325.
340.
TTZ
•wJ .C. \.> *
310.
FEED RATE Kfi/HR
OIL
131.6
131.6
132.4
133,2
133,2
133,2
133,6
132.4
131.6
127.4
132.4
131,2
132.4
132.8
132.4
124,6
123*3
122.1
122.1
122.1
122,5
122,1
133.6
137.3
116,7
127,9
126,2
124,6
125,0
124, 1
124, 1
124,1
123,7
124,1
123,7
124,1
123.7
123,7
123,7
122,9
STONE
24,9
25,9
31 . 1
33,6
32,7
12,5
40.4
27,9
16,3
26,5
0.
0,
0,
0.
0*
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
- 191 -
-------
APPENDIX C: TABLE 1,
RUN 10: TEMPERATURES AND FEED RATES PAGE 5 OF 6
DAY,HOUR TEMPERATURE? DEC, C, FEED RATE KG/HR
GASIFIER REGEN, RECYCLE CYCLONES OIL STONE
15.0630
15*0730
15.0830
15.0930
15.1030
15.1130
15.1230
15.1330
15,1430
15. 1530
15,1630
15.1730
15.1830
15,1930
15,2030
15,2130
15,2230
15,2330
16,0030
16,0130
16,0230
16,0330
16,0430
16,0530
16,0630
16,0730
16.0830
16,0930
16,1030
16,1130
16,1230
16,1330
16,1430
16,1530
16.1630
16.1730
16.1830
921.
908,
901,
901.
900.
892,
896.
900.
901.
901.
905.
906,
907.
909,
917.
925,
927.
913,
918.
925.
912.
915,
891.
839.
878.
866.
862,
885.
927,
937.
945.
950.
955.
960.
958,
955.
955.
1068,
1053,
1048,
1057.
1055.
1055.
1050.
1053.
1062,
1071,
1078,
1078,
1079,
1075,
1079,
1080.
1084.
1088.
1095,
1103,
1110.
1080,
1050.
1048,
1045,
1060,
1060.
1060.
1063 .
1082.
1093,
1076.
1078.
1075.
1070,
1065.
1063.
85.
85.
85,
75,
75,
80.
75,
40,
75,
90,
90.
85.
90.
85.
85.
85.
85.
85.
75.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
303.
28S.
265.
255,
255.
230,
2.20.
220.
225,
210.
210.
205.
205.
210,
210.
215.
225.
220,
190,
175,
170,
180,
170.
150.
135.
120.
110.
100.
95.
90,
90.
95.
95.
95.
103.
98.
103,
122.5
121.7
122,9
120,8
126,2
122.9
122,9
125,8
125,8
116.3
118.8
128.3
118.8
122.1
122,5
124.1
127.0
122.1
122.1
122.5
121.3
121 .7
119.6
123.7
122.5
122.5
123.3
122.5
121.3
120.0
123 * 7
125.0
124.1
123.7
119. 2
123.3
124,1
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0*
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
- 192 -
-------
APPENDIX C: TABLE
RUN 10 J TEMPERATURES AND FEED RATES
PAGE 6 OF 6
DAY. HOUR TEMPERATURE, DEC, C. FEED RATE KG/HR
GASIFIER REGEN. RECYCLE CYCLONES OIL STONE
SHUT DOWN AT 16.1930 FOR 37 HOURS
18.0930
18.1030
18.1130
18.1230
18.1330
18.1430
18.1530
18.1630
18.1730
18.1830
SHUT
900.
952.
947.
953,
952,
958,
957.
960.
958,
962.
DOWN AT
CHANGE TO TJ
20.2330
21.0030
21,0130
21,0230
21.0330
21 ,0430
21,0530
21.0630
21.0730
21,0830
21,0930
SHUT
21,1530
21.1630
21.1730
21.1830
21.1930
21.2030
952.
953.
956.
962.
975.
967.
976 ,
985,
980,
956,
947,
DOWN AT
963.
957.
959.
945.
941.
940.
1069,
1048.
1050.
1061.
1067,
1070,
1070,
1072,
1068.
1071.
18.1830
MEDIUM
1050,
1062.
1074.
1080.
1082.
1084.
1086.
1088.
1095,
1092.
1087,
21.0930
1100,
1100,
1100,
1100,
1100,
1100,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0*
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
FOR 53 HOURS
150.
155.
185.
190.
182.
178.
180.
213.
313.
310,
VACUUM RESIDUUM FUEL
70,
70,
70.
70.
70.
70,
70.
70.
70,
70.
70.
FOR 6 HOURS
70,
70,
70,
70.
70.
70,
163,
145,
158,
163,
148,
245,
300,
275,
305,
315,
320,
268.
345.
350.
350.
300.
300,
129.5
129.5
129.9
129,1
130.3
130.3
131.2
129.9
130,3
129.9
128.0
129,3
129,3
129.3
12.9.6
128.5
125. 1
122.7
120,6
118,0
129,7
131,1
128,7
128,8
128,7
130,4
130,4
35.8
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0,
,),
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
- 193 -
-------
DAY*HOUR
APPENDIX C. TABLE 2.
RUN 10 J GAS FLOW RATES
PAGE 1 OF 6
GAS
GASIFIER
AIR FLUE GAS
RATES M3/HR REGEN.
PILOT REGENERATOR VELOCITY
PROPANE AIR NITROGEN M/SEC
1.0130
1.0230
1.0330
1,0430
1.0530
1 . 0630
1.0730
1.0S30
1.0930
1.1030
1.1130
1.1230
1,1330
1.1430
1.1530
1.1630
1.1730
1.1830
1.1930
1.2030
1.2130
1.2230
1.2330
2.0030
2.0130
2.0230
2.0330
2.0430
2.0530
2.0630
2,0730
2.0830
2.0930
2.1030
314.
308*
332.
356.
359,
351.
334,
326.
343,
355.
356.
355.
345.
338.
335.
353.
346.
346,
346.
335.
317.
309,
311.
318.
308,
316,
317,
353.
327,
337.
347.
303.
300.
301.
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
4,5
4,5
4,5
4.5
4,5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4,5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4,5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4,5
4,5
4,5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4,5
4.5
4,5
4,5
4,5
4,5
4,5
4,5
31,6
31,6
30.6
30.6
37.5
37.5
37.8
38.1
41.0
33.6
36.9
33,8
27 . 2
27, 1
26,8
27,1
25,8
26.7
26,4
27,1
26.7
26,7
26,7
26,2
25,9
25,9
26.4
25.7
26.3
26.8
26,8
27.2
28.7
28.3
2,6
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2,3
2.4
2,2
2,0
2,3
2 , 2
2,1
2,3
2.2
2,4
2.1
2,3
2.1
2. 2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2,2
2.2
2.1
2 . 2
2.2
2.2
0,3
2.3
2.1
1.04
1.05
1.01
1,03
1,25
1,24
1.26
1.27
1.36
1.12
1.22
1.14
0.93
0.92
0.91
0,92
0.89
0,91
0,90
0,92
0,91
0,91
0,91
0,89
0,88
0,88
0.90
0.88
0,90
0,91
0,91
0,37
0,98
0.96
SHUT DOWN AT 2.1030 FOR
6 HOURS
2.1630
2.1730
283.
345.
0.
0.
4.5
4.5
29.0
29.0
0.98
0,98
- 194 -
-------
APPENDIX C: TABLE 2.
RUN 10: GAS FLOW RATES
PAGE ? OF 6
DAY.HOUR
GAS
GASIFIER
AIR FLUE GAS
RATES M3/HR REGEN.
PILOT REGENERATOR VELOCITY
PROPANE AIR NITROGEN M/SEC
2.1830
2.1930
2.2030
2.2130
2.2230
2.2330
SHUT
5.0630
3.0730
5.0830
5.0930
5.1030
5.1130
5.1230
5.1330
5.1430
5.1530
5.1630
5.1730
5.1830
5.1930
5.2030
5.2130
5.2230
5.2330
6.0030
6.0130
6.0230
6,0330
6.0430
6.0530
6.0630
6,0730
6,0830
6.0930
6.1030
6.1130
346.
346.
346.
354.
354.
354.
DOWN AT
234.
260.
376,
287.
286.
236.
286.
268.
268.
268,
285,
284.
266,
266,
284,
284,
291.
291,
291.
291,
291,
291,
239.
257.
257.
277.
296.
266.
265.
266.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2,2330
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0,
0,
0.
0,
0.
0,
64.
102.
105.
104.
85,
75.
105.
86.
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
FOR 54
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4,5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4,5
4,5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4,5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4,5
4,5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
29.3
35.5
39.9
38,2
38.2
38,6
HOURS
26,2
26,2
27,1
36,8
36.4
36,4
25,0
28,0
37.2
28.1
38.7
24.6
28,3
24,2
25.2
23.7
31.2
24.6
30.2
24.6
31,1
26,0
31,3
29,2
29,1
19,1
28.7
19.5
22.3
2.1. .9
1.8
3.1
3.1
2.5
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
3,2
3.2
2,7
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.8
2.4
3.0
2.6
2,8
2.7
3.1
1.8
3.6
1.9
2.6
2,7
0,98
1.20
1,33
1.29
1.28
1.30
0.89
0.90
0.93
1.27
1.25
1.25
0.89
0.98
1,27
0,98
1.31
0,87
0.99
0,85
0,89
0.84
1.08
0.86
1.05
0,86
1,09
0.91
1,09
1.03
1.04
0.67
1.03
0.68
0.79
0,78
- 195 -
-------
APPENDIX CI TABLE' 2*
RUN 101 GAS FLOW RATES-
DAY.HOUR
GAS
GASIFIER
AIR FLUE GAS
6,1230
6,1330
6,1430
SHUT
12,0530
12,0630
12,0730
12,0830
12,0930
12,1030
12,1130
12.1230
12,1330
SHUT
12,1830
12,1930
12,2030
12.2130
12.2230
12.2330
13,0030
13.0130
13.0230
13.0330
13,0430
13.0530
13.0630
13,0730
13.0830
13,0930
13.1030
13.1130
13.1230
13,1330
274,
282.
265,
DOWN AT
294,
293,
393,
294.
288,
313.
331.
332.
332,
DOWN AT
298.
346,
345.
335.
335.
352.
352.
353.
333,
339.
372,
405,
424,
406,
405.
318,
319.
318.
318,
318,
56,
67,
36.
6,1430
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0.
0,
12,1330
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
140.
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
4,5
4,5
4,5
FOR 134
4.6
4.5
4,5
4.5
4,5
4.5
4,5
4,5
4,5
FOR 5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4,5
4,5
4,5
4,5
4,5
4,5
4.5
4,5
4,5
4,5
4.5
4.5
4,5
4 . 5
22.5
21.9
22.7
HOURS
37.0
37.8
35.8
37,6
38,0
37 , 5
35,4
35,1
35, 1
HOURS
34.5
35. 1
33.4
28 , 6
28.6
28.3
28.7
28 . 6
28.9
28,5
28,0
26,7
28.5
28,5
29.8
35,5
35,5
35 , 5
35 , 5
35,5
RATES M3/HR
PILOT REGENERATOR
PROPANE AIR NITROGEN
2.8
4.0
3.9
4,5
4.1
3.7
~' O
W * I.."
3 . 7
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.4
2.4
4.6
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.2
3.0
3.0
2,9
3.0
2.6
2.9
2.7
2.7
3 OF 6
REGEN,
VELOCITY
M/SEC
0,80
0,78
0,81
1 .23
1,28
1 .25
1,31
1,32
1,31
1.25
1.26
1,25
1 ,22
1,22
1.. 15
0,96
1 , 03
0, 95
0,97
0,97
0,96
0,96
0,93
0.90
0,99
0.98
1 .02
1.20
1.22
1,2.3
1.20
1.20
- 196 -
-------
DAY, HOUR-
APPENDIX C: TABLE 2*
RUN 10: GAS FLOW RATES
PAGE 4 OF 6
GAS
GASIFIER
AIR FLUE GAS
R A T I
PILOT
PROPANE
3 M3/HR
REGENERATOR
AIR NITROGEN
REGEN,
VELOCITY
M/SEC
13,1430
13,1530
13.1630
13.1730
13.1830
13.1930
13,2030
13,2130
13,2230
13,2330
14,0030
14,0130
14,0230
14.0330
14.0430
14*0530
14,0630
14,0730
14.0830
14.0930
14.1030
14.1130
14.1230
14,1330
14,1430
14.1530
14.1630
14.1730
14.1830
14.1930
14.2030
14.2130
14.2230
14.2330
15.0030
15.0130
15.0230
15.0330
15.0430
15.0530
300.
299.
299.
325.
336.
331.
334.
334,
317.
334.
334,
333,
334.
333,
332,
334,
335,
318,
317.
318.
318.
318.
303.
299.
299.
342.
342.
343.
331.
332.
333.
333 .
332.
333 .
329.
334.
334,
340,
332.
332.
0.
0*
0.
0.
0*
0.
0.
0.
0.
0*
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
52,
54.
49 +
50.
44.
45.
43.
46.
131.
131.
131 .
112.
112.
102.
112.
112.
122.
122 .
122.
122.
122.
122,
74.
64,
112,
4*5
4.6
4*6
4,6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4,5
4,5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4,6
4.6
4.6
4 . 6
4,6
4,6
4,6
4,6
4,6
4,6
4,6
4,6
4,6
4 . 6
4 . 6
4.6
4 . 6
4 . 6
4,6
35.5
35.5
34.0
33 « 5
34.0
34,0
32,8
30.8
34,1
36.1
37.6
36.8
37.4
37.8
39,4
39,9
40,8
41,6
42,6
43,5
43,0
44,1
40,2
47,2
39.0
34.5
32.8
32.8
32.5
33.7
33.9
33,6
33 . 6
31.6
28.0
28,0
28, 1
28 . 2
28.3
28.0
2,6
1.9
2.6
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.5
2. 2
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.3
2.5
2. 2
2,1
2,1
2.1
2.1
2.3
2,7
O ~7
2*2
2.0
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.5
2,8
2.7
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.1
2.2
2.1
2. 1
2.1
2.1
1.20
1.17
1,15
1.13
1.15
1,14
1 . 10
1.02
1.14
1.21
1.27
1.28
1 ,27
1.2.7
1.36
1.38
1.40
1.42
1 . 45
1.48
1.44
1.49
1.37
1*58
1 * 30
1.15
1 .11
1.12
1.09
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1,09
0.96
0 . 96
0 . 96
0 . 97
0.97
0,96
- 197 -
-------
APPENDIX Ct TABLE 2.
RUN 10J GAS FLOW RATES
PAGE 5 OF 6
DAY.HOUR
GAS
GASIFIER
AIR FLUE GAS
R A T F S M3/HR REGEN,
PILOT REGENERATOR VELOCITY
PROPANE AIR NITROGEN M/SEC
15,0630
15.0730
15.0830
15.0930
15.1030
15.1130
15.1230
15,1330
15.1430
15.1530
15.1630
15.1730
15.1830
15.1930
15.2030
15.2130
15,2230
15.2330
16,0030
16.0130
16.0230
16.0330
16.0430
16.0530
16,0630
16.0730
16.0830
16,0930
16,1030
16.1130
16.1230
16.1330
16.1430
16.1530
16.1630
16.1730
16.1830
339.
304.
298.
330,
346.
329.
330,
326,
325,
325.
325.
325.
326.
326.
327.
324.
325.
342,
322,
340.
339.
340,
305.
288.
321.
304.
288.
272.
291.
290.
289,
290.
288.
298.
434.
298.
314.
68.
121.
121.
112.
77,
116,
122.
121.
112,
122,
122,
112,
112.
112.
112.
103.
122.
112.
103.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
4.6
4.6
4,6
4.6
4,6
4.6
4.6
4.6
4,6
4,6
4,6
4,6
4.6
4,6
4,6
4,5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4,5
4,5
4,5
4.5
4,5
4,5
4,5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4,5
4,5
4.5
4 . 6
4.6
4,6
28.5
28.3
20.0
25.4
33.6
33.4
33.9
34.5
32.6
28.4
27.7
28.2
26.5
29.4
24.8
24.8
27,7
29,9
27.7
29.3
26.2
2.7.4
27.4
27.4
27.4
28.0
27.6
27.8
28.0
26.2
26 , 9
34.5
40.1
41.7
41,2
39,4
42,0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.2
1.9
2.3
2.2
2.2
2,0
1,9
1,9
1 ,8
1.8
2.2
1.8
2.2
2.1
2.4
2 , 2
2.3
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.6
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.9
2,7
2.7
2,2
2,6
2.5
0.97
0,95
0.69
0,87
1,12
1,12
1,13
1.15
1,09
0,96
0,95
0,96
0,91
1,01
0.85
0.86
0 , 96
1,04
0.97
1.03
0.93
0.94
0,92
0.92
0,93
0.95
0.94
0,96
0.96
0.91
0.94
1,17
1.37
1.42
1 ,38
1 . 33
1.40
- 198 -
-------
DAY,HOUR
APPENDIX CJ TABLET 2.
RUN 10: GAS FLOW RATES
GAS
GASIFIER
AIR FLUE GAS
PAGE & OF 6
RATES M3/HR REGEN,
PILOT REGENERATOR VELOCITY
PROPANE AIR NITROGEN M/SEC
SHUT DOWN AT 16*1930 FOR 37 HOURS
13.0930
18.1030
19.1130
18.1230
18.1330
18.1430
18.1530
18.1630
18.1730
18.1830
311.
303.
308.
319.
319.
320.
317.
313.
320.
319.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
29.7
30.0
29.5
29.8
2.9.6
29.6
29.9
29.5
29.6
30.0
1.5
1.5
1.8
1,9
1.9
1,8
1.8
1.9
1 ,9
1.8
0.99
0.98
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.00
0.99
0,99
1.01
SHUT DOWN AT 18,1830 FOR 53 HOURS
CHANGE TO TJ MEDIUM VACUUM RESIDUUM FUEL.
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
,2330
,0030
.0130
.0230
.0330
.0430
,0530
,0630
.0730
.0830
.0930
328.
340.
346.
343.
345.
344.
343.
340.
347,
346,
344.
53.
61.
53.
58,
61.
67.
68.
6 6 .
66.
63.
67.
4,
4.
4.
4.
4,
4,
4,
4,
4.
4.
4,
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
16
15
15
32
31
31
31
32
32
32.
31
.1
,6
,3
.0
.5
.7
.8
.0
.0
,3
,8
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
,4
.4
.9
.9
, 2
.1
.0
.8
,7
,7
,8
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.55
.53
.51
.04
.04
.04
,05
.05
,05
,06
,04
SHUT DOWN AT 21,0930 FOR
6 HOURS
21
21
21
21
21
21
,1530
.1630
.1730
,1830
.1930
,2030
334
332
315
294
315
315
4
4
*
4
4
4
79.
81.
121.
121,
121.
121.
4.
4,
4,
4,
4.
4.
6
6
6
6
6
6
25.
25,
25,
25,
25,
27.
7
7
7
7
7
o
*••
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
8
8
8
8
8
8
0,86
0,86
0.86
0,86
0.86
0.91
- 199 -
-------
GASIFI
DAY. HOUR
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
i
*L*
71
9
2
o
o
2
2
,0130
.0230
,0330
,0430
,0530
,0630
,0730
,0830
.0930
.1030
.1130
.1230
.1330
.1430
,1530
.1630
.1730
.1830
,1930
.2030
.2130
,2230
,2330
.0030
.0130
.0230
.0330
.0430
.0530
.0630
.0730
.0830
.0930
.1030
SHUT
.1630
.1730
GAS
SP
2
2
9
3
3
3
2
2
2
9
2
r?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
'
k
2
"i
A .
2
1
1
DOWN
2
9
ACE
,8
,8
.9
,0
.0
,0
,9
,9
,9
,9
,9
,0
,9
.9
,9
.9
,9
.9
.9
.9
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.9
.0
. 1
.1
.0
.9
.9
AT
. 2
,5
APPENDIX CJ TABLE 3,
RUN 10 1 PRESSURES PAG
ER P. KILOPASCALS GASIFI ER
DISTRIB.
D
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*
*
4
*
4
4
*
*
4
*
*
*
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
P,
7
7
/
7
7
7
7
7
5
5
7
0
6
5
7
7
5
6
7
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
5
5
5
2,1030 FOR
4
5
->
4
2
0
BED
D
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
32
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
10
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
11
11
4
4
P.
9
2
9
5
5
9
7
4
7
4
2
o
•9
3
4
7
7
9
9
•9
7
7
7
9
2
1
9
7
2
7
3
1
1
8
HOURS
7
/
BED
SP
1
1
:l
1
1
:l
l
1
.1
J
l
l
1
l
1
l
l
l
l
l
i
1
l
1
l
1
1
l
l
l
l
l
i
l
l
l
, OR,
,05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
,05
,05
.05
.05
.05
.05
,05
.05
.05
.05
,05
,05
.05
.05
,05
,05
,05
,05
,05
,05
,05
,05
,05
,05
,05
1 OF 6
RFGEN,
BED
II, P ,
13,9
13.9
13,9
14,2
14.2
14.4
15,2
15,9
15,9
15,9
15,9
15,4
15.4
12.9
12.9
13.4
13,4
14,9
14.9
14,2
14,4
14,2
14,4
14.4
14.7
14.4
14,4
14,4
14.4
13.9
13.7
13.4
12,9
12,9
13.2
13,2
- 200 -
-------
APPENDIX CJ TABLE 3,
RUN 10J PRESSURES
PAGE 2 OF 6
DAY.HOUR
GASIFIER
GAS
SPACE
2.1830
2,1930
2,2030
2.2130
2,2230
2,2330
SHUT
5.0630
5,0730
5,0830
5,0930
5,1030
5,1130
5.1230
5,1330
5.1430
5.1530
5,1630
5,1730
5.1830
5.1930
5.2030
5.2130
5.2230
5,2330
6,0030
6.0130
6.0230
6.0330
6.0430
6.0530
6,0630
6.0730
6,0830
6,0930
6,1030
6,1130
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.9
2,9
2.9
DOWN AT
2 , 6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.5
2.8
2.9
2,9
2,9
2 . 6
1.9
2,1
2,1
2 , 2
2,5
2.7
2.7
R P. KILOPASCALS GASIFIER
DISTRIB.
D , P ,
5,2
5,2
5,0
5,0
5,0
4.7
2,2330 FOR
2,0
2 , 2
2,2
2.5
2,7
2,5
2,5
2.6
2,5
2,7
2.9
2.9
2.7
2,7
3,0
2.7
2,7
3 , 0
3.0
3*0
3.0
3.0
3, 1
3.2
3.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
4,0
3,7
BED
D . P ,
11,7
11,4
11,4
11,4
11,4
11,3
54 HOURS
9,6
10,0
10,1
10,1
10,3
10,2
10.2
10,1
10.1
10,2
10,6
10,7
10.7
10.S
10.9
11.1
11,2
11,2
11.2
1 1 , 2
11,2
11.2
1.1 .1
11.1
10.9
1 0 . 7
10,6
10.5
10.2
10,2
BED
SP, GR.
1,05
1,05
1,05
1.05
1,05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1 .05
1 .05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1 .05
1.05
1,05
] .05
1.05
1.05
1 . 05
1.05
1.05
1 . 05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1,05
1.05
1,05
1.05
1,05
1 .05
REGEN.
BED
D , P .
13,2
12.9
13,4
13.4
13.4
13.4
10,9
10.9
11,4
11.2
11.4
11.9
11.9
12,2
12.4
10.9
11.2
11.4
11.4
10.9
10.9
11,2
11.4
1 1 . 4
1 1 . 7
11.7
11.7
11.7
11.4
11,2
1 0 , 9
10,9
11,4
11,4
11,7
11,7
- 201 -
-------
APPENDIX c: TABLE: 3*
RUN 10J PRESSURES
GASIFIER P. KILOPASCALS GASIFIER
DAY. HOUR
6.1230
6.1330
6.1430
SHUT
12.0530
12.0630
12.0730
12.0830
12.0930
12.1030
12.1130
12,1230
12.1330
SHUT
12,1830
12.1930
12,2030
12.2130
12.2230
12.2330
13,0030
13,0130
13.0230
13.0330
13.0430
13.0530
13.0630
13.0730
13,0830
13,0930
13.1030
13.1130
13.1230
13.1330
GAS
SPACE
2.7
2.8
2.8
DOWN AT
2.5
2,9
2,8
2,4
2,3
2,8
2.9
2,5
2,7
DOWN AT
1,9
1.9
2.2
2,3
2,3
2,3
2,3
2,4
2,4
2.4
2,3
2.3
2.8
2,9
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.6
DISTRIB.
D , P .
3.7
3.7
3.7
6.1430 FOR
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.0
3.7
4.2
4.2
4.7
4.5
12.1330 FOR
3.7
4,2
4,5
4.2
4.2
4.2
4,7
4 . 7
4,7
4,0
4.0
4,0
5,0
6,0
6,0
6,0
5,5
5.2
5,0
4,7
BED
D , P ,
10,2
10,1
9.8
134 HOURS
10,2
10,1
10.1
10.7
11,7
11,6
11 ,6
11,7
11,7
5 HOURS
12,1
12.2
12.2
12.4
12.7
12,8
12,7
12.3
12.4
13.3
13.6
14.1
13.1
12.4
12.1
1 1 . 3
1 1 . 2
1 0 . 9
10,8
10.9
BED
SP. GR.
1,05
1,05
1 ,05
1,05
1,05
1,05
.1 . 05
.1 ,05
1 , 05
1,05
1,05
1,05
1 ,05
1 , 05
1 .05
1 . 05
1 . 05
1 . 05
1.05
1 . 05
.1 .05
1 .05
1 .05
1,05
1,05
1.05
1.05
1 . 05
1 ,05
1 , 05
1,05
1 .05
PAGE 3 OF 6
REGEN.
BED
D. F:',
11.7
11*7
11.4
12.4
12.3
12.3
12.9
13.2
13. A
13,8
13.7
13,7
14.2
13.9
13.9
14.2
14,4
14.4
14.4
14.2
1 4 . 2
14.9
15.2
15,4
14.9
14.4
13.9
12.9
12.1
11.7
11 .9
12,3
- 202 -
-------
APPENDIX
RUN 10:
Ct TABLE
PRESSURES
PAGE-: 4 OF
DAY. HOUR
13.1430
13.1530
13.1630
13,1730
13.1830
13.1930
13.2030
13.2130
13.2230
13.2330
14.0030
14.0130
14.0230
14.0330
14.0430
14.0530
14.0630
14.0730
14.0830
14,0930
14.1030
14.1130
14.1230
14.1330
14.1430
14.1530
14,1630
14.1730
14,1830
14.1930
14,2030
14.2130
14.2230
14.2330
15.0030
15.0130
15.0230
15.0330
15.0430
15,0530
GAS IF I ER
GAS
SPACE
2,6
2.4
2.5
2,6
2.5
2.4
2,4
2,3
2,3
2,3
2,2
2.1
2.1
2,1
2.4
2,4
2,4
2,4
2,2
2.2
2,3
2.3
2.5
2,5
2.5
2.4
2.4
7' ^
2,5
O cr
«:. , >J
2,5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
o z
*". * U/
2.6
2.6
2,5
2.4
P. KILOP
n i SIR IB.
D . P .
4,2
4.0
4.7
4.5
4.2
4.2
4.4
4,2
4,2
4,0
4,2
4,2
4,2
4,2
4.2
4,5
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.7
5.2
5.5
5.7
6.0
6,0
2,0
6.0
5.7
5.7
5,7
5.5
5.5
5,5
5,7
6,0
6,0
6.0
6 , 0
AS GAL S
BED
D . P .
11,1
11,3
11 .4
11.4
11.4
11 .4
12,6
12,9
13,2
13,4
13.4
1 3 . 7
13.7
13.6
13,6
13.3
13.2
13,1
12,9
12,9
12,9
12,8
12.7
12,7
1 2 , 7
1 2 , 7
12,6
12.6
1 2 . 6
12.2
11.9
11.9
11.9
1.1 .7
1 1 . 7
1 1 . 4
1 1 . 4
1 1 , 4
10.9
1 1 , 4
GASIFIER
BED
SP. GR.
1.05
1.05
1 .05
1,05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1 . 05
1 . 05
1 .05
1,05
1 . 05
1 .05
1 . 05
1.05
1.05
1 .05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1 .05
1 . 05
1.05
1 , 05
1.05
1 , 05
1 , 05
1 , 05
1 . 05
1.05
.1 ,05
1 , 05
1 ,05
1 , 05
1,05
1 , 05
1,05
RE: GEN.
BED
D , P .
12,4
12.3
12,9
12.9
12.9
13.4
13,9
14.3
14.2
14.3
14,3
14,3
14,1
13,9
13,9
13,9
13.8
13.6
13.3
13.4
13,6
13*4
13.4
13.4
13.4
1 4 , 1
13,9
1 4 , 2
13,9
13,6
13.3
13,3
13.3
13.3
13,3
13,1
13,1
13,1
12,4
12,9
- 203 -
-------
APPENDIX CJ TABLE 3,
RUN 10: PRESSURES-
5 OF
DAY,HOUR
GASIFIER P* K1L.OI
GAS DISTRIB.
SPACE D.P,
15.0630
15.0730
15.0830
15.0930
15.1030
15.1130
15.1230
15.1330
15.1430
15,1530
15.1630
15.1730
15.1830
15.1930
15.2030
15.2130
15.2230
15.2330
16.0030
16.0130
16.0230
16.0330
16.0430
16.0530
16.0630
16.0730
16.0830
16,0930
16.1030
16.1130
16.1230
16,1330
16,1430
16,1530
16. 1630
16.1730
16.1830
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.2
2,2
*•* * 2
2.2
2.1
2.0
2,0
2.0
1,9
1 ,9
2.0
2.0
2,1
2.1
1.8
2.1
2.2
•") ~7
*',. * /
2,8
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.2
5.5
5,0
5,0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5,0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5,5
5,5
5.5
5.0
5,5
5,0
5.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
5,5
5,5
5.5
5.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.5
5.0
5.5
6 . 0
5,5
5.5
SCALS
BED
D . P .
10.9
11.2
11.4
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10,5
10.3
10.1
10. 1
10.3
10.1
10.1
10.1
10, 1
10, 1
9.S
9.8
9.8
1 0 . 0
9.8
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9 . 6
9 . 5
9.5
9 , 5
GASIFIER
BED
SP, GR.
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1 . 05
1 .05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1 . 05
1 . 05
1.05
1.05
1 .05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1 .05
1.05
1.05
1 . 05
1 .05
1.05
i .05
1 .05
1 . 05
1.05
1 .05
1,05
1.05
1 .05
1.05
1 .05
1 .05
1 .05
1 .05
REGEN.
BED
D . P .
12.4
12.7
13,4
1 2 . 3
1 2 . Z
12.3
12.1
12.1
1 2 . 2
12,2
12.3
12.3
1 2 . 3
12.3
12.3
12.2
1 1 . 8
11,8
1 1 , 9
1 .1. . 7
11 ,7
1 1 , 7
1 1 . 6
11.4
11.2
11.2
1 1 , 1
11.2
11.2
11.1
10,9
10.9
10,8
10,7
1 0 . 6
1 0 , 6
1 0 , 6
- 204 -
-------
APPENDIX c: TABLE: 3*
RUN 10, PRESSURES PAGE
6 OF 6
DAY. HOUR
13
18
IS
18
18
18
13
18
18
18
SHUT
.0930
.1030
.1130
.1230
.1330
, 1430
.1530
.1630
.1730
.1830
SHUT
GAS IF]
GAS
SPACE
DO UN
9
o
o
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
DOWN
CHANGE TO
20
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
2.1
21
21
21
21
21
21
.2330
. 0030
,0130
.0230
.0330
,0430
.0530
,0630
,0730
.0830
.0930
SHUT
.1530
,1630
,1730
,1330
,1930
.2030
9
w1
3
3
vj
3
3
3
3
T;
3
DOWN
'.i
2
7;
O
iC.
O
O
AT
,4
,4
,9
.0
,0
,0
,1
.0
.0
. 1
AT
TJ
.9
.0
.2
. 2
,3
,3
.2
o
o
, »'..
-j
, AH
,2
AT
.8
-~;
, *;.
, 6
, 2
a
, ^..i
o
, /
iER P. KILOPASCALS GASIFIER
DISTRIB. BED BED
D.P. D.P. SP. GR.
16.1930
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
fir
\.j +
cr
^ +
5.
5.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13,1830
MEDIUM
8,
3.
8.
3.
8,
S.
3,
3,
8,
a*
8.
0
0
0
0
••)
2
o
•-,
•~,
A.
?
P
21,0930
8,
7 »
..•' +
7 *
"7
/ +
/' +
5
5
v
?
*"f
A'..
O
FOR 3
9
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
o
/
FOR 53
VACUUM
10
9
G
/
9
9
9
9
9
o
9
9
FOR
9
9
9
o
/
9
C5
/
7 HOURS
.6
.1
,7
,7
.6
,6
,5
.5
,5
.5
HOURS
RESIDUUM
,2
,7
,5
cr
+ -uJ
,2
,0
, 3
,3
"/
* >.*>
. 1
6 HOURS
,0
,2
» 3
, 1
.1
. .1
1.
1 ,
1,
1,
.1. .
.1 ,
1.
1,
1.
:l .
F
l.
1,
1 ,
1 ,
l ,
1 ,
l ,
1 ,
1 ,
l.
1 ,
1 ,
1 .
1 ,
1 ,
1.
:! .
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
UEL
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
RFGEN,
BED
D , P ,
11.
11 ,
11 ,
.11 ,
1.1,
1 1 ,
11 .
11 ,
11.
11.
3.0,
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
10,
10.
10.
10*
10.
10.
10.
10.
10,
10.
1
3
4
4
*•)
%..,
4
4
p
•-;
0
0
0
Q
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 205 -
-------
RUN 10:
APPENDIX C, TABLE 4.
Ii E S U L P H U RIS A T10 N P E R F 0 R M A N C E
PAGE: i OF
DAY
.HOUR
SULPHUR-
RE HO UAL
GAS
VFL.
% M/S
1.
1 .
1.
1.
1,
1.
1.
1.
1 .
.1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1,
l .
1.
1 .
l .
l.
l.
1 4
2.
2 .
2.
2.
2.
2.
'~i t
2 4
2.
2.
2.
0130
0230
0330
0430
0530
0630
0730
0330
0930
1030
1130
1230
1330
1430
1530
1630
1730
1830
1930
2030
2130
2230
2330
0030
0130
0230
0330
0430
0530
0630
0730
0830
0930
1030
76.
73.
S3.
80.
78.
82,
85.
35.
SO.
81 4
80,
81.
82.
82.
84 ,
83,
S3,
83,
82.
32*
79.
80.
81 4
82.
83.
78.
78.
81.
81,
73 .
75,
73 ,
74,
72.
6
9
2
6
4
5
5
2
1
6
6
9
5
5
8
6
9
6
3
3
7
71
5
5
1
2
3
6
~>
A'..
6
9
0
4
6
0.
0,
0.
0,
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0 ,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
o..
0,
74
73
77
85
34
80
74
73
79
82
84
84
81
78
77
81
80
80
81
78
74
73
72
73
72
74
75
85
78
81
84
73
72
72
G-BED
DEPTH
CENTIM
99*
99,
99,
101.
101,
106,
113.
120.
•i '>"?
J. *l. O *
120.
113.
113,
113.
119.
120.
123-
123.
125,
125.
113.
1 TT
J. *:. o ,
123 .
123.
125,
128.
127.
125.
123.
118.
113,
110,
107.
107.
1 05 .
AIR/
FUEL
X ST.
22.0
21.6
23,3
25,0
25.1
24.6
23.4
22.8
24.0
24,9
24.9
24,4
23.7
23.2
23.0
24,4
2 4 , 0
24,0
23,9
23.2
21.9
2 1 . 4
2 1 * 5
22*0
21,3
21 ,9
2 1 . 9
24.5
22 4 0
i "> .•:
^. .>.. 4 O
JV.. *i 4 v3
20,4
20.2
20.2
CAO/S
RATIO
HOL ,
0.
0,
2.
0 *
5.
6,
\i +
4,
0.
0,
0,
0,
1 4
2 .
2.
2.
2 4
1 4
1 ,
.1. 4
0 ,
0 4
2,
3 •>
0 4
0 4
0,
0 4
0 ,
0,
0 ,
0,
0,
04
44
•~?Ti
98
22
58
42
36
65
31
63
57
/">Q
»;. o
24
89
80
93
57 '
42
21
79
33
79
55
34
21
"i CAB ;
TO CAO
21.7
21 46
21 4 1
20 . 9
16,8
16.4
17.2
24. 1
45.5
54.5
51 ,4
56.7
55.2
52* 1
60.9
58*0
6 1 . 0
62.2
66. 6
71.8
90.9
125,2
1 17.7
104,3
.1.03.0
109,6
1 1 0 , 7
1 r~, 1 "|
.1 >J J. . V..
° 1 i.
'-> .1. * O
73 , S
67 , 8
6 1 . 9
63.7
67.3
REGEN.
3 OUT %
OF FED
29.0
28.9
27.6
27,7
24.8
24,6
25.2
34.6
75,2
76,2
31 ,9
84,4
6 1 4 6
56*7
*: •( <~.
U.1 -i. + \,f
62.0
63,8
67,1
70.9
77.2
74* 1
44. 1
34,2
54. :;.
69,4
52. 1
43,5
24.9
8 1 . 9
<::• i o
<~; .1. * '_•
80,3
70,3
77.2
75 . 5
2. 1630
2.1730
SHUT DOWN AT
6 7 4 6
0»6 7
0,82
1030 FOR
113.
113,
6 HOURS
1 8 . 4
22,4
!/
0*29
0.04
14.4
•~/1-"4, /
.»:. s.-- . u^
i •;' i~
J. •-' 4 .._i
1 4 4 1
- 206 -
-------
APPENDIX c: TABLE 4,
RUN 10 .* DESULPHURISATION PERFORMANCE
PAGE
DAY. HOUR
2*1830
2*1930
2*2030
2*2130
2*2230
2,2330
5,0630
5,0730
5*0830
5,0930
5* 1030
5*1130
5*1230
5*1330
5* 1430
5*1530
5*1630
5*1730
5*1830
5*1930
5,2030
5*2130
5*2230
5*2330
6*0030
6*0130
6,0230
6.0330
6.0430
6*0530
6,0630
6,0730
6,0830
6,0930
6,1030
6*1130
SULPHUR
REMOVAL
%
70.2
72,6
72.5
73.0
74 , 2
73,8
SHUT DOWN
73*2
74,1
70 , a
68*7
68,3
66,4
6 6 * 3
65,4
67,4
68.6
74*4
74 * 3
75*3
80*5
82.0
80,3
77 , 3
75.3
78,0
79, 1
78 , 7
•72*3
73,3
7 1 , 1
70 , 8
67,4
66*2
70,8
7 1 , 4
73,3
GAS
VEL*
M/S
0,83
0 , 83
0,82
0,84
0,84
0.85
AT 2
0,54
0,61
0,88
0,67
0,67
0,66
0,67
0*62
0*61
0 * 60
0*65
0*65
0 * 60
0 * 6 1
0*65
0*65
0*67
0*67
0,67
0,67
0*68
0 * 69
0,73
0,87
0,86
0,90
0 * 90
0*81
0 * 88
0,83
G-BED
DEPTH
C EN TIM
113,
111 ,
111,
111,
1.11 .
110,
,2330 F
93,
96.
97,
97,
100,
99 ,
99*
97*
97.
99*
102,
104.
104,
105.
106,
107,
108*
108*
108*
108*
108,
108,
107,
107,
106.
104*
102*
1 0 :!. *
99*
99*
AIR/
FUEI
'/. ST
22*5
21,0
21*0
21*5
21,5
21.5
OR 54
19*6
21*7
31,4
22,5
22.0
21,9
22,0
20,6
18,9
18*9
20 . 1
20*5
1 9 * 3
19*2
20*5
20*5
21 ,0
2 1 , 0
21*0
21,0
21 .0
21 .1
20,6
26 *6
2,6 » 9
28,6
*"} O C":
26,7
27* 1
26*6
CAO/S
1- RATIO
, MOL.
0*
0 * 50
0*35
1 * 08
0*58
0.
HOURS
0,87
0*72
0 * 48
.1. . 22
0*75
0*54
0*39
0 * 1 9
0*58
1 , 97
1 *66
1.19
1 * 06
1 , 1 9
:i .24
1 .28
0.69
0*67
A . £;".<'
0*80
0*18
0 * 1 1
0,13
0*41
0,58
0*64
0 * 4 1
0*61
A /'
A: •> ~'< "''
2*21
% CAS
TO CAO
44,9
—
.„
-
-
-
17.5
30*0
•-} c:; -7
*".. w * /
16.6
26.4
50.3
59.6
58.9
6 1 . 7
66,7
63.9
6 3 . 3
62.5
94,9
83.0
106,5
110.0
107,1
104.4
100,6
v -~i •'
7 .%. + *:.
85,7
67,9
65,1
51,9
53,2
56,4
54 , 1
55,2
52, 1
REGEN,
S GUT %
OF FED
15,2
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1 6 , 6
36, 4
30,8
2 1 . 1
37,9
80,9
63 , 0
69*7
74*0
45*9
86* 9
60 , 9
66 » 8
62*6
7 1 , 9
60,6
85*5
70* 1
89*7
71*3
91.4
79,8
100*8
.1. 1 1 , 6
83*4
57,7
95*5
6?*6
71.5
65,9
- 207 -
-------
RUN 10 .*
APPENDIX CJ TABLE 4,
DESULPHURISATION PERFORMANCE
F'AGE
OF
SULPHUR
DAY
*'.
'-.' *
6*
6,
12,
12.
•i '"}
.L ^1. t
12*
12,
12,
12,
12.
12.
12,
12,
32.
12.
12.
12.
1 3 ,
X 3 .
13.
13'.
13 »
13,
13.
1 3 .
1 3 *
1 3 .
1 3 .
1 3 *
13.
13,
• HOUR
1230
1330
1430
0530
0 6 3 0
0730
0930
0930
1030
1130
1230
1330
1830
1930
2030
2130
2230
2330
0030
0130
0230
0330
0430
0530
0630
0730
OS30
0930
1030
1130
1230
1330
REMOVAL
%
72
72
68
SHUT
70
7'?
71
75
74
SO
81
Si
80
SHUT
77
SO
81
81
81
82
83
84
84
84
79
30
SO
80
81
82
82
S3
84
85
,9
,3
,0
DOWN
.8
,0
.9
,9
,3
.7
,8
.1
,1
DOWN
,8
.8
,6
, 2
,5
,3
,6
,0
,9
,0
,9
,7
,5
. 1
, 3
,0
,5
.5
,5
~"7
4 /
GAS
VEL.
M/S
0,78
0.83
0,84
AT 6,
0.67
0.68
0,90
0. 66
0 * 66
0*74
0,77
0,78
0,77
AT 12,
0,69
0,80
0,79
0,76
0.76
0,81
0.81
0,82
0,76
0,76
0,82
0,92
1 , 00
0,93
1 , 26
0 , 7 4
0,76
0 , 7 6
0,74
0,73
G-BEB AIR/
CAD
DEPTH FUEL RAT
CENTIM % ST. MOL.
99
97
95
1430
99
97
97
104
113
112
1 1 2
113
113
1330
1 1 7
118
1 1 8
120
123
124
123
119
120
12.9
1 3 1
1 3 6
127
120
117
110
108
106
105
.106
. 2 6 . 2
27,3
24,6
FOR 134
1 9 , 3
21,6
26,9
20,3
1 9 , 0
20.6
2 1 , S
2 1 , 8
21 ,9
FOR 5
22,9
24 . 1
24,2
•-, -7 er.
» jt. •._' * -...'
*"} T •";
4 *.. -W.J * a'..
•~) A *"
t A'.. *T 4 W
24,8
, 24,7
23,4
, 23,4
25,6
1 "V C)
+ *•- / + f
'"t O O
+ »•../»/
O '"' »•'
t i. O , ft
, 30 , 3
22,6
22,7
,™% .— , ..
, v.' A-: < is
•'"' '"V ~V
» i..C. , /
22,6
0,
0,
0 ,
HOURS
0 ,
0,
'"j
4 ,
0 ,
0*
1 ,
2 „
0.
HOURS
'•>
""|"l
2,
2,
'"'
1 ,
o
.w. •>
.1. ,
2,
-.5 •>
O
•™i
A- 4
•"}
.•'.. *
0,
1 ,
0,
0,
0 ,
0 .5
''.''
/B
REGEN,
10 x CAS S OUT %
TO CAO OF FED
80
60
46
2 9
38
17
.-, -i
A. .'
1 5
90
54
14
16
49
15
76
45
69
35
O"7
rt'.. t..1
O O
'._•• /
69
O TT
/ •- .'
'" ?:!
32
46
52,
5 1 ,
54,
.„
-
-
-
-
48,
4 1 ,
3 7 ,
36 ,
A Cj
•'v u> ,
43 ,
53,
58,
,:'. C5
\..' '...' +
67 ,
61 ,
62,
71 ,
53,
»i -:~"
\.j \.> ,
...
_
-
—
-
...
Q
A
0
9
8
0
9
0
Tf
1
i
5
4
7
0
1
9
/••.
67,3
65,9
66.8
0,
0,
0 4
0.
0 ,
67,9
55,9
49,0
A Q . T!
68,1
£• ',/•' •* c:'
69,1
61,3
,.-.. '~> ~'
64,0
^^ -..^ , >:"i
69 * 3
6 B , 7
43,4
31,9
0 4
0,
0,
0 -.
0.
0 «
0,
0 <
0 ,
- 208 -
-------
APPENDIX c: TABI F A.
RUN 10J DESULPHURISATION PERFORMANCE
PAGE 4 OF 6
DAY .HOUR
13,1430
13.1530
13,1630
13.1730
13.1830
13.1930
13.2030
13.2130
;i.3.2230
13.2330
14.0030
14.0130
14.0230
14.0330
1 4. 04 30
14*0530
14.0630
14. 0730
14.0830
14.0930
14.1030
14.1130
14.1230
14. 1330
14.1430
14.1530
14.1630
14.1730
14. 1830
14.1930
14.2030
14.2130
14.2230
14,2330
15.0030
15.0130
15.0230
15.0330
15.0430
15.0530
SULPHUR
REMOVAL
%
85 . 1
85.1
S6.8
87.1
87.1
87.3
84.5
85.4
85.1
85.7
84, 1
84,4
84.6
84.9
85.2
84. 6
87.1
86,2
84,5
83.2
81,6
83.0
77.6
75.8
74 , 6
73.9
73.4
73 , 6
7 4 * 0
73,3
74. 1
74.3
74.0
71.7
71,0
70.4
70.5
/. O Ci
\~f f + l«'
71,3
71.9
GAS
WEI. .
M/S
0.69
0.69
0 , 69
0 , 74
0.77
0 , 76
0.76
0 , 76
0.72
0.76
0,77
0.79
0.79
0 , 79
0.79
0.91
0,93
0.87
0.87
0 , 86
0,86
0,85
0,81
0.99
1 ,00
1,11
1 .07
1 .08
1 .03
1.05
1 . 06
1 .08
1.08
1 . 08
1 .07
1 , 09
1,09
0,99
0,93
1 ,06
G-BED
DEPTH
CENT I M
107,
110,
111.
111.
1.11.
Ill,
122.
125.
128.
130.
130.
133,
133,
1 3 1 *
131,
129.
128.
127,
125.
125,
125,
124,
123,
.1. 2 3 ,
123,
123,
122,
122,
1 ~'i •";
J. A'.. V.. ,
118,
116,
1 .1 6 .
116,
113.
1 1 3 ,
1 1 1 ,
111.
1 1 1 ,
106,
1 1 1 ,
AIR/
FUEL
% ST.
21.4
21.3
21 ,1
22.9
23.6
23.2
23 . 4
23,6
OO £
24,6
23,6
23,8
23,6
23,4
23,5
26,3
26,8
25.5
25,5
25,4
25,4
25.4
22 , 5
22,8
26,8
27,4
2 7 . 4
27.7
26,6
27, 1
27,0
.—. -«i f-f
27,2
27,2
27,0
27,3
27,4
'-' 7 , '~>
26,4
27,6
CAO/S
RATIO
MOL.
2.48
2,57
3,07
3,30
3.21
1 .23
3.96
'"> ~7 *:
AX » / i .»
1 * 6 3
O — , ~-T
t'-. •» / :.t
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0 .
0 .,
*.' *
0.
0,
0.
0,
.-.
•--' ,
0 ,
0,
0 ,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0 ,
0,
0 ,
0 ,
0,
0,
0.
% CAS
TO CAO
_.
62,4
59,6
55,6
53.3
60.1
93.9
62.3
i~r cr cv
O •...' * U
88.0
70,1
80,9
-
-
-
68,7
92,0
72,5
45,2
48,5
4 4 . 4
4 6 * 8
48, 1
4 £ , 4
4 4 , 0
50 * 0
4 9 , 4
4 8 , 7
43,6
49,9
49,0
53,9
56,0
46,6
53.2
57.9
53,9
55 . 3
56.5
6 0 . 0
R E G E K' ,
S OUT A,
OF FED
0.
7 1 . 2
74 ,8
70.2
76.3
76 . 7
81,5
60,5
55 » 7
76,5
/ V , t.'>
69 , 7
0 *
0.
0,
66. 4
114,5
119.2
73.0
92.6
76.2
91 .7
77, 1
80.3
71 .3
• ,~i ir/
•;:• ••• * •„•
67 ^ 3
69, 1
63-0
68,6
4* '~~: '~";
•J1 O + w
69,4
f/ .*.;. t ^*,
65.5
6 4 . 7
69,5
il /. O
u. • ;..' •» /
69,6
•-' .^. T -.;/
'"•'0 . 6
- 209 -
-------
RUN 10:
APPENDIX CJ TABLE 4,
EI E 8 U L. P H U RIS A T10 N F' E R F 0 R M A N C E
PAGE
OF
DAY, HOUR
SULPHUR
REMOVAL
GAS
UEL ,
% M/S
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
1 5
15
16
1 6
16
16
16
16
1 6
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
,0630
,0730
,0830
,0930
.1030
,1130
.1230
.1330
. 1430
.1530
.1630
.1730
.1830
.1930
.2030
.2130
.2230
.2330
.0030
.0130
.0230
.0330
.0430
.0530
.0630
.0730
.0830
.0930
.1030
.1130
.1230
.1330
.1430
. 1530
.1630
. 1730
.1830
71,3
69,7
69,8
69,3
68.2
68,1
67,6
67,3
65,9
67.0
66,3
66,4
65,6
65,1
64,2
65,7
64,8
63,9
61,9
56,3
56,7
58,3
59,4
7 ^ , ^'
68,5
61 , 1
57,2
55,6
62,4
63,3
6 2 , 7
63 , 5
64,2
62,2
58.1
62,6
63,5
0,
1 ,
0,
1,
0.
1.
1.
1,
1,
1 ,
1 ,
1,
1 .
1,
1 ,
1,
1. ,
1.
1 ,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
1 ,
0,
0,
96
00
98
03
98
03
05
04
02
05
05
03
03
03
04
0.2
07
07
01
79
79
79
69
65
72
68
64
62
68
69
69
69
69
72
04
71
75
G-BED
DEPTH
CENTIM
106,
1 08 ,
11.1 .
106.
106.
106.
101 ,
101,
101,
101 ,
101,
101,
101,
101,
101 .
100,
97.
97.
100.
97,
97.
97,
97.
97,
95,
95,
95,
96,
95,
93,
93,
93,
93,
93,
9.1,
9 1 ,
91 ,
AIR/
FUEL.
/: 8
27.
25,
25,
27,
27.
27,
27,
26.
26.
28.
27,
25.
27,
26.
26,
25 ,
25,
28,
26,
26,
26.
26,
23,
2 1 ,
24 .
23,
2 1 ,
2 0 ,
2'' ,
V •"•
21 ,
21,
21,
22,
34 ,
VV ,
23 ,
:T,
1
9
1
8
2
Z
9
3
1
3
8
5
6
9
9
9
8
0
9
0
2
1
9
3
6
2
8
c;
5
6
o
7
7
6
0
6
7
CAO/S
RATIO
MOL. ,
0.
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0 ,
0,
0 ,
0 ,
0,
0,
0,
0 ,
0,
0,
0,
0 ,
0,
0 , .
0,'
0,
0,
0,
0 ,
0,
0 ,
0,
0 ,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0 ,
% CAS ;
TO C
60
60
76
63
46
46
54
53
r.; ••;
53
56
59
54
62
59
56
56
59
46
48
40
31
59
61
98
55
50
46
71
107
116
75
82
75
AO
,4
, 2
,2
,5
.4
, 1
,1
. 1
.5
,5
.5
.0
.4
.4
.8
.9
. 1
,5
. 1
.4
. 2
.7
,6
.7
,6
, 0
, 1
,4
,8
, 2
,0
--
~
-
.9
.9
,6
RE'GEN,
3 OUT %
OF FFD
7 6 , 4
67.8
60*0
60,9
65.1
59,8
78. 1
75,6
72,9
69, 1
66,8
69. 1
63 . 5
79. 3
64.4
61 ,9
68,6
82,2
56,2
66,2
49.1
38,1
71,3
61 ,8
55.7
54,5
52.6
4v,8
*3.6
C w . 1
76 , 9
0 *
0,
0,
53 , 3
70.3
80.. 1
- 210 -
-------
APPENDIX c: TABLE A,
RUN 10J DESUL.PHURISATION PERFORMANCE
PAGE 6 OF 6
HAY
. HOUR
SULPHUR
REMOVAL
'/.
SHUT DOWN
IS,
18*
18*
18.
18.
; o
.1 tJ *
18.
J.8.
1 8 ,
IS.
0930
1030
1130
1230
1330
1430
1530
1630
1730
1830
SHUT
85.4
84. 8
80.7
76.0
7 1 . 2
67.9
65.9
65 . 3
63.0
63.4
DOWN AT
CHANGE TO TJ
20.
2.1 .
21.
2.1. ,
21.
21.
2.1 .
2 1 .
21.
2 .1. ,
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
21.
2330
0030
0130
0230
0330
0430
0530
0630
0730
0830
0930
SHUT
1530
1630
1730
1S30
1930
2030
78 . 7
76.7
7 1 . 9
69 . 2
65.7
62.0
59.9
59*4
59 . 5
59.3
63.1
DOWN AT
58.6
62 * 0
63 . 7
64 . 0
60.9
58.8
GAS
VEL .
M/S
AT 16
0*71
0.72
0.73
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0 . 76
0 . 76
0.76
G-BED
DEPTH
CENT I M
.1930 FOR
93.
97.
94.
94,
93,
93.
91 .
9 1 .
91.
91 ,
18.1830 FOR 53
MEDIUM
0 . 92
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.99
1 . 00
1 . 0 1
1 . 00
1 . 0 1
0.99
0.98
2.1.093
1 . 0 1
1.01
1.07
1.01
1 . 05
1 . 05
VACUUM R
99.
94,
91,
91 ,
89.
87,
90.
90.
89.
90,
88."
AIR/
FUEL.
'/. ST.
CAO/S
RATIO
iMOL,
/;: UAS
TO CAO
RF.GF:
S OUT
CF F
N,
A,
ED
37 HOURS
22.5
21,9
22 + 2
23.1
22,9
23,0
22, 7
23., 0
23,0
23.0
HOURS
ESI EUR
25,2
26 , 0
2 6 » 3
26, 1
26 . 2
26.6
27.3
27,6
28,7
29,4
26,3
3,62
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.
0 ,
0 ,
JM FUEL
0,
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
0 ,
0,
0,
14
64
77
69
64
55
57
51
48
48
46
->•->
SO
64
66
62
60
57
55
52
53
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
+
+
f
4
4
+
4
«
*
4
4
t
t
4
6
9
6
1
6
0
3
5
6
3
r"
^!
1
1
J.
5
i
tL.
7
6
2
?
9
8
1 4 .
77,
83,
73 ,
82,
"7 •*">
"'? "V
/ f *
63,
/ •._> 4
/ £» 4
72.
-v "i
i •'.. V
70.
61.
8
8
7
0
o
/
P
•";
1
6
4
6
1
"V
9
'i
JU,
*~j
b
3
/
0
1
0 FOR 6 HOURS
87.
39.
90,
88.
88,
88,
26,0
26,0
25.1
23.6
24,7
2 4 ., 9
0,
0.
0.
0*
0,
0,
55
•~>7>
~***i
47
52
64
4
4
4
4
4
,
3
1
0
o
6
2
15.
10.
0,
42,
4 1 ,
36 ,
.A
6
0
~z
vJ
/
o
-211-
-------
APPENDIX c: TABLE 5.
RUM 10! GAB COMPOSITIONS
PAGE 1. OF
DAY 4 HOUR
i
rv>
1.0130
.1.0230
J.0330
1.0430
1.0530
.1 .0630
.1. . 0730
1.0830
1.0930
1030
1130
1230
1330
1430
1530
1.1630
1.1730
1830
1930
2030
1.2130
1.2230
1.2330
2.0030
2.0130
2.0230
2.0330
2.0430
F L
02
-
9 , 5
9.0
--
--
9.0
9,0
-
8.0
9.0
4.0
3.5
3,4
3.4
5.0
5.4
4. 1
4,0
4,0
3,8
3.6
3,1
3,4
3,7
3,8
5,0
4.2
U E G A S
C02 VOL %
ANAL. CALC
8 . 3
-
14.0
J. 4 . 0
-
--
.1. 4 , 0
1 4 . 0
...
.1. 4 , 0
14,0
1 4 . 0
14.0
14,0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
1 4 . 0
14,0
14,0
14,0
14.0
1. 4 . 0
14,0
1 4 , 0
14.0
1 4 , 0
8.3
8 . 7
9, 1
8 , 2
8,2
9,0
9.0
8 . 3
9.8
9 . 0
12.9
13,2
1 3 . 3
13,3
1 2 , 1
1 1 , 8
1 2 . 7
12.8
.1. 2 . 8
13.0
13. 1
13,4
1 3 . 2
13.1
13.0
12.1
.12.7
902
PPM
...
151.
181.
...
...
136.
139.
-
186.
1 8 1 .
241.
240.
241 .
210.
206.
197.
217.
229.
236,
274.
272,
262,
244.
230.
296.
274,
244,
REGENERATOR GAS
02 C02 S02
0,20 :l ,4 2.4
0,20
0.20
0,20
1,80
1.40
1 . 00
0.50
0,
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
0.
0,
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
1 ,4
1 ,0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1 , 9
3,2
3,6
3.4
2.7
2 , 2
3,3
3,4
4.7
4 . 1
3.7
3.9
4. 1
4 . 5
8 . 2
1 3 . 7
14.3
1 1 . 6
9,8
12,1
13,2
1 5 . 7
2 , 4
2 . 4
2 , 4
1 . 8
1 .8
1 . 8
2.4
4 . 8
5.8
5.8
6 . 5
5.8
5.4
5,8
5 . 8
6 . 2
6.4
6,7
7 . 1
6.5
3,7
2.9
4.8
6,2
4,6
3,7
2,2
GAS JETER
02 VOL /'
ANAL CALC
2 1 .0 21.0
2.i.
21
2.1
2.1
21
21
2:l
21
21
21
21
21
21
9 1
»-. J.
21
21
2:l
21
2 1
2.1.
2:l
21
2.1.
21
21
21
21
.0
, 0
.0
. 0
.0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
,0
,0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
,0
,0
.0
2 1 . 0
2 1 , 0
21 .0
21 .0
2 1 , 0
2 1 , 0
2 1 . 0
2 1 , 0
2 1 . 0
21.0
2 1 . 0
2 1 . 0
2 1 , 0
21.0
21,0
2 1 . 0
21 .0
21 ,0
2 1 , 0
21.0
21,0
21,0
21 .0
2 1 . 0
21 .0
21,0
21,0
INLET GA<;
CO 2 VOL
AHAI. CAL
0 , 0 ,
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0 .
0.
0.
-------
r\j
uo
i
2.0530
2.0630
2.0730
2,0830
2.0930
2.. 1.030
4.5
4.2
3,9
3.7
A. 1
4.1
1 4 , 0
.1. 4 , 0
14,0
14,0
1 4 . 0
14,0
SHUT DOWN AT
2.1630
2.J.730
2.1830
2,1930
2,2030
2.2130
2.2230
2.2330
4,8
5,2
4.0
2 , 8
2.6
3,0
2,9
2,9
1 4 . 0
1 4 , 0
1 4 . 0
14.0
1 4 . 0
.1. 4 . 0
.1. 4 , 0
1 4 , 0
SHUT DOWN AT
5,0630
5 . 0730
5.0830
5.0930
5.1030
5.1130
5,1230
5.1330
5.1430
5.1530
5. 1630
5.1730
5,1830
5.1930
3,5
5.3
5,2
3.9
3,3
6.0
4.2
3.5
4.0
5,0
5,0
5.5
5.8
4.5
14.0
14.0
.1. 4 , 0
14.0
1 4 . 0
14.0
14.0
1 4 , 0
14,0
14.0
14,0
14,0
14,0
14.0
12,5
1 2 , 7
1 2 . 9
13.1
12.8
1 2 . 8
244.
282 .
323.
365,
339.
364,
2.1030 FOR
12.3
12.0
12,8
13,9
14,0
13,7
13,7
1 3 . 7
4 1 3 ,
428.
403,
394,
399,
383.
368,
374,
2.2330 FOR
1 3 . 1
.1. 1 . 8
.1.0.8
1 2 , 9
13.3
11,3
12,6
13,2
12.8
12.0
1 2 , 0
11,7
11,4
12,4
360,
312.
322.
413.
428.
391,
438.
470.
434.
395,
322.
311 .
293.
252.
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
6
0,
0.
0,
0.
20.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
54
5,00
0.50
3.00
6.00
3 . 50
1 . 00
0.80
0.70
0.80
1 , 00
0.50
0 . 30
0.70
0.20
5,0
3.6
2.2
3.2
4.2
4 . .1.
HOURS
4 . 7
8.6
13,7
0,2
0,2
0.
0.
0.
HOURS
1.7
2 . 8
1 , 2
0.9
1.2
2 . 7
3.7
3.9
6.3
8 . 6
5.6
4.5
4.7
9.2
7 . 8
7.8
7.8
7 , 2
6,9
6,9
:i. . 3
1 .3
.1 .3
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.3
2,9
2.4
1 .3
2,4
5 , .1.
5,4
5 . 4
4,8
3.7
5.4
5.6
5.4
5,6
2 1 . 0
21.0
21.0
21.0
2.1. .0
2 J . 0
2 1 , 0
21 ,0
2 1 , 0
2 .1. . 0
21 .0
21,0
21 .0
21.0
2.1. .0
2.1. .0
2.1. ,0
2 .1. . 0
2 1 . 0
21.0
2 1 . 0
21 ,0
21.0
2 .1. . 0
21.0
21 .0
21 ,0
21.0
2.1. ,0
2 1 . 0
2 .1. . 0
2 1 , 0
21.0
21 .0
21,0
2.1. .0
2 1 . 0
2.1. .0
2 .1. . 0
2 1 . 0
2 1 . 0
2.1. .0
21 ,0
21 .0
2.1. .0
21 ,0
21.0
2 .1. . 0
2.1. ,0
21.0
2.1. .0
2.1. ,0
21 .0
21 .0
21.0
21 ,0
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0 . 1 5
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0 .
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
-------
RUN
APPENDIX CJ
101 BAS
TABLE 5,
COMPOSITIONS
PAGE 2 OF" A
no
-t
I
DAY.HOUR
5.2030
5,2.1.30
5,2230
5.2330
A,0030
6.0130
6.0230
6.0330
6,0430
6.0530
6.0630
6.0730
6.0830
6.0930
6.1030
6.1130
6,1230
6,1330
6.1430
12.0530
12.0630
12.0730
12.0830
12.0930
12.1030
12.1130
12.1230
12.1330
F L
02
V
/«
4,7
4,7
5.2
5,0
5,7
5.0
5.3
7.0
6.3
7.2
7,5
7.5
7,5
7,3
7,3
7,4
7,3
7,5
6,8
U E (5 A
CO 2 VOL.
ANAL
1.4.0
1 4 . 0
14,0
14,0
14,0
14.0
14,0
14,0
14.0
14,0
.1. 4 . 0
14,0
14,0
14,0
14,0
14,0
.1. 4 , 0
14,0
14,0
SHUT DOWN AT
6.0
5,3
5 , 5
4.8
5 . .1.
6,4
6 . 2
6.4
6.8
14,0
14,0
14,0
14.0
14,0
14.0
14.0
14,0
14,0
s
%
CALC
12,
12.
.1. 1 .
12,
1 1 ,
1 2 ,
11.
10.
11.
.1.0,
10.
10.
10,
10,
10.
10.
10.
10.
10.
6,
11,
11,
1 1 .
1 2 .
12.
11.
11 ,
11 .
10.
••>
o
9
0
5
0
8
5
0
•-)
0
0
0
1
1
0
o
0
5
1
4
9
0
t>
1
0
2
0
7
SO 2
PPM
229.
252.
282,
309.
264 ,
261.
261.
302,
302 ,
302.
299.
333.
345.
302.
297.
275.
281.
283,
346,
430 FOR
342,
343.
322,
306,
322,
222.
212,
217,
222.
RF:OE
02
%
0 , 20
0.20
0 . .1. 0
0 . 1 0
0 . 20
0.20
0,40
0,30
0.50
0,60
.1. , 00
1 . 00
0,40
0.40
0 . 60
0.50
0 . 50
0.50
0.60
134
14.00
10,30
9,50
9.00
9.50
0.50
0,80
1,20
1 ,OO
NERATOR GAS
CO 2 S02
%
6 , 8
1 0 . 3
10,5
9.8
9.2
9.0
7 , 8
6,5
3,4
1 .9
1,9
.1 .6
1 . 6
.1. . 4
1.2
1 . 2
1 . 2
1,0
1,2
HOURS
0.2
0,7
1,4
.1. ,9
3,7
3.4
2.5
1.9
2. 1
7,
6 . 4
5,4
6,0
6.2
6.5
6.4
6.5
6.9
6.9
7.2
5,4
5 . 8
6 . 2
6.2
6.2
5 , 8
5,8
5.8
6,0
0.
0.
0,
0,
0.
4.8
4.2
3,7
3,7
GASIFIER
02 VOL "/
ANAL
21.0
2 1 . 0
21 .0
21.0
21 .0
21 ,0
2 1 . 0
21.0
17,2
18.0
1 5 . 0
1 5 , 5
.1. 6 . 0
16.4
1 6 . 8
17,2
1.7,3
17,5
17,4
21. .0
2 1 . 0
2 1 , 0
21.0
21,0
21,0
21.0
21 .0
2 :l , 0
CALC
21 ,0
21 ,0
21. .0
21.0
2.1. .0
2 1. , 0
2 1. , 0
2 1 , 0
1. 7 . 8
1 6 . 9
16.9
1. 7 , 2
1. 7 . 9
17.8
16,9
17.5
18.5
1 8 . 3
.1. 7 . 3
21 .0
21,0
2.1. .0
21.0
21.0
21 .0
21 .0
21 ,0
2.1. O
INLET
CO 2 V
A WAI.
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0.
0,
1 .55
1. ,62
3.33
2.98
2.64
2,32
2,98
2,00
1.93
1 .93
1 .85
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0.
0,
0.
G ('i S
'01... A
CALC
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.09
4 . 1 2
4,20
3.96
3.24
3,30
4,20
3.64
2.55
2,80
3 . 63
0,
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
-------
SHUT DOWN AT 1.2.1330 FOR
5 HOURS
i
ro
ui
i
12.1830
.1.2,1930
12.2030
12.2J.30
12.2230
1.2.2330
13.0030
13.0130
13,0230
13.0330
13,0430
13.0530
13,0630
13.0730
13.0830
13.0930
13.1030
13.1130
13.1230
13,1330
13.1430
13,1530
13,1630
13,1730
13,1830
.13.1930
13.2030
13.2130
6.5
4. 9
4,0
5.4
5.4
6.0
6.0
6,0
6,0
6.5
6 . 5
6.5
6,5
6.5
6,0
5,9
5,7
5,6
5,4
5.2
5,0
4,8
4.5
4.5
4,5
4.5
4,8
4.6
14.0
14.0
14,0
14.0
1 4 , 0
14.0
14,0
1 4 , 0
14.0
1 4 . 0
14.0
14,0
.1. 4 , 0
1 4 . 0
14.0
14.0
14,0
14.0
14.0
14,0
.1.4.0
14,0
14,0
14.0
14.0
14,0
14.0
14,0
1 0 . 8
12.0
12,1
11.7
1 1 . 7
1 1 , 2
1 1 , 2
1 1 . 2
1 1 . 2
10.8
10,8
10,8
10,8
10,9
1 1 . 2
11.3
11.5
11.6
11.7
11,8
12,0
12,1
12.3
12,3
12,3
12,4
12.1
12,3
249.
240.
232,
229.
226.
208,
192,
186.
1 76 .
1 8 1 .
230.
222 .
222.
224.
218.
211.
207,
197,
.1.87.
174.
186.
189.
171.
167,
167.
164,
198.
188.
2.10
0.50
0.10
0.
0,
0.
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
0.
4.00
21,00
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.20
0. 10
0,
0,
0.
''>
2
4
5
6
6
5
4
6
8
11
17
.1.0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
5
4
4
5
9
7
, 5
.8
.1
.2
• /
.7
.6
,5
.7
,0
,9
,0
.0
.9
.0
*
*
4
4
*
%
,4
,3
.7
r;
* *.'
.2
,6
.4
4.4
4,4
5 . 1
5,3
4,9
5,4
5.4
6.0
5.8
3.7
2.7
0,
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0,
4.9
5.4
5.3
5 . 6
5,6
5.8
4.8
21
21
21
21
2 1
21
2.1.
21
21.
2.1.
21
21
21.
21
18
21
2.1.
21.
2.1.
21.
2.1
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
,0
.0
.0
.0
,0
,0
,0
.0
.0
.0
,0
,0
,0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
,0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
21.0
2 1 . 0
2 1 . 0
2 1 . 0
21.0
21.0
21 ,0
21,0
21 ,0
21,0
2 1 . 0
21.0
21,0
2 1 . 0
1 7 . 1
2.1. .0
2 1 . 0
21.0
2 1 , 0
2.1. .0
21.0
2.1. ,0
21 ,0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
0.
0.
o.
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
l.f
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0.
0,
35 3.66
0,
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-------
ro
Ft UN
APPENDIX CJ
1.0! GAS
TABLE 5.
COMPOSITIONS
PAGE 3 OF 4
n AY. HOUR
13,2230
13.2330
1 4. 0030
14.0130
14.0230
14,0330
1.4,0430
14,0530
14.0630
14,0730
.1.4,0830
14.0930
14,1.030
14.11.30
14,1.230
14.1330
14,1.430
14. 1530
14,1.630
14,1730
.1.4,1830
14.1930
14.2030
1.4.2130
14,2230
14.2330
15,0030
15,0130
F I
02
'/•
5,1.
5.6
7 , 2
7,0
6.8
6,5
6,0
6.8
7,3
6 , 8
7,0
7.0
7 , 2
6.8
6.4
6.0
6,0
5,5
5.5
5.3
5,2
5.5
5.2
5.2
5,2
5.2
5.2
5,2
LJ E G A
C02 VOL
ANAL
14.0
1 4 , 0
14.0
14.0
1.4,0
1 4 , 0
1.4.0
1.4,0
14,0
.1. 4 , 0
1. 4 . 0
1.4,0
1 4 . 0
14.0
1 4 . 0
14,0
1.4.0
1 4 . 0
1. 4 . 0
1.4,0
14.0
14.0
1. 4 . 0
14.0
.1. 4 , 0
14,0
1.4.0
1.4.0
s
7,
CALC
1.1.
11
10
10
10
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
.1.0
1.0
10
1.0
.10
1.1
1.1
11
11
1.1.
1.1.
1.1
.1.1
1.1
11.
1.1
11
11.
.9
,5
,3
.5
,6
,9
.2
.6
.2
.6
.4
,5
,3
.6
,9
,2
. 1.
.5
.5
.7
.8
.5
,7
,7
.7
.8
,7
.7
SO 2
PPM
187.
173,
1. 7 1 ,
171.
172.
172.
174.
170.
137.
151.
1.67,
181.
196.
186.
254.
282,
292 .
312.
3 .1. 7 .
320.
3.1.7.
3 1 9 .
316.
3 1. 3 .
3 1. 7 .
345.
353.
361.
REGENERATOR GAS
02 C02 S02
%
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0,40
0.40
0.40
1 , 00
1. , 00
0 . 1 0
0.10
0.20
0 , 20
0.30
0.40
0,90
1.10
0,40
0.20
0 . 20
X-
1. 1 . 9
1 0 , 7
8,2
.1. 0 . 7
15,4
1 3 , 7
1.2, 1
1.0.7
9.0
5.8
5,5
3 . 4
4,7
3.2
3.4
3 . 7
4, 1
4,2
3 , 9
3,6
4,5
4,2
3.9
4,7
4.2
2.7
3.6
3.9
%
3,7
4 . 8
5, 1
4,4
0,
0,
0,
3 « 7
6.2
6,5
4,0
5. 1.
4 . 2
4,9
4.9
4.6
4,2
4,9
4.9
4,9
4,6
4,8
4,8
4,8
5,1.
4,9
5 , 4
5,8
GASIFIER
02 VOL 7.
ANAL
2 1 , 0
21 ,0
2 .1. . 0
21,0
2 1 , 0
2 1. , 0
2 1 . 0
1 9 . 0
1 9 . 0
1 9 . 0
1. 9 , 0
1 9 . 2
1 9 , 2
19,2
19.0
16.4
1. 6 . 4
1 6 , 6
1 7 , 6
1 7 , 6
1 7 . 6
1 7 . 6
17.5
1. 7 . 5
17.5
1. 7 , 6
17.6
17.8
CALC
2 1 . 0
2 1. . 0
21.0
2 1 . 0
2 .1. , 0
21 .0
2 1 , 0
19.0
19,0
19.0
19.0
1 9 . 2
19,2
.1. 9 . 2
1.9.0
1 6 , 3
1 6 , 3
16,6
1 7 , 1.
17,0
17,2
1. 7 . 0
16.9
1.6.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
INI.. FT GAS
C02 VOL /;
ANAL
0.
0,
0,
0,
0-
0,
0,
0.46
0,55
1. , 4 0
1 . 55
.1. .40
1 .40
1 ,32
1 , 85
2.98
2,98
2,64
2,48
2 , 08
2,08
2 , 08
2 . 03
2,00
2 . 00
2,00
2.00
2,00
CAI.C
0,
0,
0.
0 ,
0,
0 .
0,
1. ,97
2,04
1,97
2,00
1 .80
1 .83
1 . 77
1 .92
4 . 4 '."'
4,42
3.97
3,53
3.53
3.37
3.61
3,61.
3,83
3,83
3,83
3.83
3.83
-------
15.0230
15,0330
15.0430
15,0530
15.0630
15.0730
15,0830
15,0930
15.1030
15.1130
15,1230
15,1330
15.1430
15,1530
15.1630
15.1730
15.1830
15,1930
15.2030
15,2130
15,2230
15.2330
16.0030
16,0130
16.0230
16,0330
16,0430
16,0530
16.0630
16.0730
16.0830
16.0930
16. 1030
16.1130
16.1230
16,1330
5.2
6.0
6.0
6 , .1.
5.5
6.0
6.0
5.8
5.9
5 . 8
5.0
5.1
5 , 1
5,1
5.1
5.0
5,0
5.2
5.2
4,5
4,8
4.8
4,4
4.2
4,2
4,2
4.0
3.8
3,8
3.0
2.8
2,8
3.6
3.4
3,8
3.7
14,0
.1. 4 , 0
.1. 4 , 0
1 4 , 0
14.0
14,0
1 4 , 0
14.0
1 4 , 0
1 4 , 0
1 4 , 0
14.0
14,0
14.0
14.0
1 4 , 0
1 4 , 0
14.0
1 4 . 0
14,0
1 4 . 0
14,0
14.0
14.0
1 4 , 0
14,0
14,0
14.0
14,0
14.0
14,0
14.0
14.0
14.0
.1. 4 , 0
14,0
1 1 . 7
11.2
1 1 . 2
1 1 . 1
1 1 . 6
1 1 . 1
1 1 . 1
11,3
1 1 . 3
11.3
1 1 , 9
1 1 , 8
1 1 , 8
1 1 . 8
1 1 . 8
11,9
1 1 , 9
1 1 , 7
1 1 . 8
12.3
1 2 , 1
1 2 . 1
1 2 , 4
12.7
12,7
1 2 . 7
1 2 . 8
13,0
1 2 , 9
13,5
13,7
13.7
1 3 , 1
13.2
12,9
1 2 , 9
359,
350.
331.
322,
343.
350.
349,
360,
372,
375,
400,
403,
419,
403.
412.
417.
424,
425.
437,
438,
441 ,
453.
489.
567.
561.
541 .
534.
373.
423,
544 ,
605 .
625.
507.
501.
500,
497.
0.
0.
0,
0,
1 ,
1 ,
2.
2.
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
1 ,
0,
1 ,
1.
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
1.
1 .
20
30
50
80
00
40
00
30
70
60
30
30
40
30
40
30
30
30
30
40
20
20
00
80
20
80
20
40
80
90
00
00
3
3
2
3
3
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
-*
W
3
A
3
3
3
3
2
1
.1.
1
4
6
.1 :l
6
5
5
7
8
1.0
15
.3
.2
,8
.9
,0
, 2
.1
.2
.3
.7
,9
,1
.4
.7
,4
.9
.9
, J.
,9
.3
.0
,0
,5
.9
,4
,4
,5
,5
,9
,8
,5
,0
.0
,6
.3
,7
5,
5,
6,
5,
6,
5.
6,
5,
4.
4,
I"'
\J »
5.
5.
5,
5.
6,
5 ,
6.
6,
5,
6.
6,
4,
5,
4,
3,
5,
5,
4,
4.
4,
4,
5,
6,
6.
0,
6
8
0
8
'•>
A'.
4
5
•7,
8
':>
4
3
4
4
4
0
4
'••i
0
8
0
4
8
3
4
3
8
1
p
4
4
0
3
9
0
1 8 , 0
18.2
18.5
1 8 , 0
.1. R . 3
17,3
17,2
17.3
1 B . 2
1 6 . 9
1 7 , 1
1 7 . 0
1 7 . 2
1 7 . 1
1 7 . 2
! 7 , 2
1 7 . 1
1 7 . 2
1 6 . 0
1 6 . 0
1 6 . 0
1 8 , 0
1 8 . 0
2 1 , 0
2 1 , 0
2 1 , 0
2 1 . 0
2 1 . 0
21.0
2 1 , 0
2 1 , 0
2 .1 . 0
21 .0
2.1 .0
21 .0
21.0
16.7
18.2
18,5
1 7 , J
1 8 . 3
16.5
16.5
1 7 . 1
1 8 . 2
1 7 , 0
1 6 , 6
16,7
16.9
1 6 , 7
16,7
1 6 , 9
1 6 , 9
1 6 . 9
1 6 , 9
:l 7 , 0
1 6 , 6
1 7 , 0
1 7 , 0
2 1 . 0
21 ,0
2 1 , 0
21 .0
2 .1 . 0
21.0
21 .0
2 1 . 0
21.0
2 1 , 0
21 .0
21 .0
2 .1. . 0
1 .
1 ,
1 .
1 *
1 .
.-: *•
2 ,
o
r-. *
1 .
2.
•'"}
*.. +
'')
»*. *f
2,
'•>
r'.. *
2 *
•">
2,
2.
*•>
;;/,
p f
*'.. *
2.
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
85
76
62
8 5
69
"* '"•
32
••.? '~i
76
56
48
48
48
40
AS
40
43
40
16
40
64
1 6
48
3.83
2 . 6 1
2,33
3.62
2,44
4 , 1 9
4 , 1 9
3,61
2.60
3,70
3,83
3.82
3.61
3.83
3,83
3,60
-;• .' ."i
-...• + O w
3 . 6 1
3 « 6 :l
3.37
3,82
3,45
3,37
0,
0,
0.
0,
0.
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-------
APPENDIX CJ TABLE 5.
RUN 10! GAS COMPOSITIONS
PAGE: 4 OF A
ru
Co
i
F L U E
DAY* HOUR 02 C02
16.
16.
16.
16,
16.
16.
18.
18.
18.
18.
i8.
18,
18.
18,
:i a ,
18.
20.
21.
21,
21.
21.
1430
1530
1630
1730
1830
1930
0930
.1.030
1130
1230
1330
1430
1530
1630
1730
1830
2330
0030
0130
0230
0330
7. ANAL
3,3 14. 0
3.7 .1. 4 , 0
3,2 14,0
2 . 6 1 4 . 0
3,0 14,0
2 , 8 1 4 . 0
SHUT DOWN AT
5,1 14,0
5.2 14,0
4.9 14,0
4,8 14,0
4.8 14,0
4 . 8 1 4 , 0
4,7 14.0
4.4 14,0
5,0 14,0
5.0 14.0
SHUT DOWN AT
CHANGE: TO TJ
6.2 14.0
6.0 14.0
6,0 14.0
6.0 .1. 4 , 0
6,1 14,0
G A
VOL.
S
"/
CALC
.1.3
12
.1.2
.1.3
1 3
13
J6
11
1.1.
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
18.
.2
.9
.2
.8
.5
,7
S02
PPM
501.
516.
538,
540,
514.
590.
,1930 FOR
,9
,9
.1
.2
.2
,2
,3
,5
,0
.0
1830
MEDIUM
.1. .1.
11
11
11
1.1
,2
.3
.3
.4
.3
182.
187.
242,
302.
363,
403,
431,
446.
458.
453.
FOR
REGENERATOR GAS
02 C02 SO 2
X
1.00
0,30
0.60
0 , 50
0 , 50
0,80
37
2.80
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
7,
1 6 , 3
.14,6
1 2 , 6
11,2
10.0
6.7
HOURS
2 , 8
5 , 0
6,5
6,7
3,6
2,7
2 . 5
2.5
2,5
2 , 5
%
0,
0.
2 . 7
3,8
4,2
4.8
1 , 3
6,4
6,7
5,8
6.9
6.2
6.5
5.8
5.4
5.4
GASIFIER
02 VOL %
ANAL
21,0
21.0
21,0
21 .0
21.0
2.1. .0
21.0
21.0
21.0
2 .1. , 0
21,0
21.0
21.0
2.1. .0
21 .0
21.0
CALC
2 1 . 0
2 1 , 0
2.1. .0
2 .1. . 0
2 1 , 0
2.1. .0
21 .0
21.0
21,0
21.0
2.1. ,0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21,0
INI i
CO:
AN.
0.
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
53 HOURS
VACUUM RESIDUUM
310.
342,
413,
453,
501.
0.
0.
0.
0.2
0.2
1 3 . 5
6,0
7.2
3,0
1.0
FUEL
1 . 3
6.2
6,5
7.4
8.5
18.8
1 8 , 6
1 8 , 7
18.7
18.6
1 8 . 8
18.6
18.7
18.7
18.6
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
CALC
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
2.08
2.24
2.15
2. 15
2.26
-------
21,0430 6.5 14.0 11.0 539, 0.4 1.0 8.0 18.5 18.5 0. 2,41.
21,0530 6.8 14.0 1.0,7 557. 0.7 1.0 7,6 .18.5 18.5 0. 2.46
2.1. .0630 7.0 14,0 1.0.6 555. 1,0 1,0 7.1 18.6 18.6 0. 2.40
21.0730 7,0 14,0 10.6 553, 1.0 0,4 7.1 18.6 18.6 0. 2.40
21,0830 7,8 14,0 .1.0,0 523, 1.2 0,4 6,7 18,8 1.8.8 0. 2.33
21.0930 6,0 14.0 11,4 543, 1,0 1,8 6,3 18.418,4 0. 2,43
6
6
7
7
7
6
SHUT
8
6
5
5
5
5
.5
.8
.0
,0
,8
,0
14.0
14.0
14,0
14,0
14,0
14.0
DOWN AT
.0
.7
.3
.3
.3
.7
14,0
14,0
14,0
1.4,0
14,0
14,0
1 1 . 0
1.0,7
1. 0 . 6
:l o , 6
.1.0,0
1.1,4
539,
557.
555.
553,
523 ,
543 ,
21,0930 FOR
9,8
10.8
11.8
11.8
1 1 . 8
1 .1. . 5
528 ,
533.
559.
554.
604.
624.
0.4
0.7
:l . 0
1.0
1.2
1,0
6
15.0
11.0
7.0
1.5
0.5
0.5
1. .
1 ,
.1. ,
0.
0,
1 ,
HOURS
0.
0,
0,
1 ,
4.
9.
0
0
0
4
4
8
4
2
2
4
4
2
8.0
7.6
7.1
7 . :l.
6,7
6,3
.1. ,8
1 .3
0.0
5.4
5.3
4,2
18.5
.1 8 . 5
1 8 . 6
18.6
18,8
1 8 . 4
J. 8 , 4
1 8 . .1.
1 7 . 7
1 7 , 5
1 7 . 7
17.8
1 8 . 5
1. 8 . 5
1 8 . 6
18.6
1.8.8
18,4
1 8 . 4
18.1
.1. 6 . 5
.1 6 . 3
1 6 , 5
16.6
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
o.
0,
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
21.1530 8.0 14,0 9,8 528, 15.0 0,4 .1. ,8 .18,4 18.4 0, 2.80
21,1630 6.7 14,0 10.8 533. 11.0 0,2 1.3 1.8.1 18.1 0. 2.84
21,1730 5.3 1.4.0 11.8 559. 7.0 0,2 0.0 17.7 .1.6.5 0, 3.99
2.1.1830 5.3 1.4.0 11.8 554. 1.5 1,4 5.4 1.7,5 .16,3 0. 4.18
21.1930 5.3 14.0 11.8 604. 0.5 4.4 5.3 1.7.7 16,5 0. 3.99
21.2030 5.7 14,0 11.5 624. 0.5 9.2 4.2 17.8 16.6 0. 4,00
-------
APPENDIX C! TABLE 6,
RUM 101 SULPHUR A Mil STONE CUMULATIVE BALANCE.
DAY.HOUR
IN
T 0 T A I...
S U L P H U R
I L 0 M 0 I... S
FLUE REGEN FINES IN-OUT
F'AGE I Of 4
EQUIVALENT BURNT STOW.
K 1 I... 0 0 E A M 9
FEED REMOVED IN-OUT
ro
o
1. .0130
1.0230
.1. ,0330
1.0430
1.0530
1.0630
1 . 0730
1.0830
1.0930
1, 1030
1 . 1130
1,1230
1.1330
1,1430
1,1530
1,1630
1,1730
1.1830
1.1930
1 , 2030
1.2130
1 . 2230
1.2330
2,0030
2,0130
2.0230
2.0330
2,0430
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
y
2
2
2
2
....
-
.107
.214
..
...
.322
.430
--
,537
.644
,753
,862
,972
,081
.190
,299
.408
.516
.625
.733
,841
.950
,059
.167
, 275
. 383
.491
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
-
--
018
039
„
..
054
070
-
090
.1. 1 1
130
149
169
185
203
221
238
257
276
298
320
340
359
377
401
424
444
...
0.030
0.059
..
-
0,086
0. 124
...
0 . 205
0,293
0,384
0,452
0.514
0.581
0.649
0.718
0,791
0,868
0,952
1 , 032
1 , 080
1.117
1, 176
1 .251
1 . 307
1 , 354
1 .381
...
--
0,008
0 . 0 1 5
...
~
0,020
0,022
...
0,025
0,027
0,030
0,033
0 , 036
0,038
0.042
0.048
0.051.
0,052
0,053
0 . 054
0,055
0 , 058
0 . 059
0.060
0,061
0,062
0.062
0,
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0 .
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
...
...
052
101
-
...
1. 6 1
2 1 4
-
217
21.3
208
228
254
2.76
297
3 1 2
327
339
344
349
387
435
465
479
506
543
604
0,
2 . 7
16,3
22,3
54.3
94.6
1 J. 5 , 5
142.2
142.2
1.42.2
142.2
146.3
.1.54.4
170,9
187,0
201 ,1
215,0
226.7
237.9
249.8
249,8
253.4
268.3
288 . 2
288.2
293.1
293.1
295.2
6,7
1. 3 , 4
20. 1
26.6
33,4
39,9
44. 1
46,3
48.4
50,6
52,7
54 . 8
56,9
59,0
61 ,1
63,5
68.5
70,3
71,0
7 1 . 6
72,3
73.0
75 . 4
76,1
7 6 » 7
77 , 3
77.9
78 . 2
•••••':• < /'
- .1. 0 . 7
— 3 « 7
-•A .3
20, V
54,7
7 1 . 4
95,9
93.8
91.6
89,5
91.5
97,6
1 1. 1 , 9
125,9
:l 37.6
146.5
1.56,4
1.66,9
1.78.2
1.77,5
1.80.4
192.9
212,1
2 1 1 . 5
215. 8
215.2
217.0
-------
I
(V)
I
2,0330
2.0630
2.0730
2,0830
2.0930
2.1030
2.1630
2,1730
2, 1830
2.1930
2.2030
2.2130
2.2230
2,2330
5.0630
5,0730
5.0830
9,0930
5,1030
5,1130
5,1230
5,1330
5.1430
5 . 1 530
5.1630
5.1730
5. 1830
5.1930
2.603
2.714
2.826
2.937
3,048
3.160
SHUT DOWN
3.275
3 , 389
3.504
3.627
3,751
3.874
3,998
4,121
SHUT I'.iOWN
4,211
4 , 300
4 , 390
4,486
4 . 583
4,681
4,779
4,876
4 . 982
5 , 089
5.196
5,299
5.403
5.507
0.465
0.489
0.516
0,546
0,574
0,605
AT 2.
0,642
0,68.1.
0 . 7 1 6
0,749
0,783
0.81.7
0,848
0,881
AT 2.
0 . 905
0.928
0 , 954
0,984
1 ,015
1 ,047
1 , 080
1 , .1. 1 4
1,149
1. 182
1.209
1,236
1.262
1 , 282
1.473
1 ,564
1 ,653
1 . 732
1 . 8 1 8
1 . 902
1030 FOR
J. , 9 1 7
1 . 933
1,951
1 ,951
1 .951
1,951
1,951
1 .951
2330 FOR
1 ,966
1.998
2.026
2.046
2.083
2.162
2,224
2.292
2.370
2.419
2.512
2,575
2.644
2 . 709
0,066
0 , 066
0.066
0,067
0.067
0.068
6
0 . 068
0,073
0,076
0,031
0 , 086
0,09.1.
0,096
0.101
54
0. 107
0 , 1 1 2
0 , 1 .1. 7
0,122
0,127
0,135
0, 139
0,142
0,145
0, .1.48
0.151
0.160
0.162
0, 163
0 . 600
0 , 596
0,590
0,593
0,589
0.586
HOURS
0.647
0,702
0,762
0,846
0.931
:l , 0 1. 6
1,102
1 .188
HOURS
1 .231
1.262
1,293
1.333
1.358
1,337
1.336
1 .329
1,319
1,340
1 , 324
1 , 329
.1. , 335
1,352
300,2
303,7
305.9
307.3
307,3
307.3
309.2
309,4
309 . 4
313.0
315,4
323.0
327, 1
327,1
331 .6
335.3
337.7
344.4
348,6
351 , 6
353,8
354.9
358,4
370,4
380 . 5
387.5
393 . 8
400,9
80 . 3
80 , 6
80 . 8
8:1. . 1
81 .3
81.6
8 1. . 8
84,2
85.7
88,5
91 ,3
94 , 0
96.8
99,5
1 02 . 3
105. 1
107.8
1 1. 0 . 6
1 1 3 , 3
:l 17.6
119. 7
.1.21 . 1
122.4
123.8
125.2
130.5
131. 7
132.6
'•'. .1. 9 , 9
223,2
225, !
226.2
2?5,9
225.7
227,3
225 . 2
223.7
224 .5
224,2
229,0
230.4
227.6
229,3
230,2
229.9
233, 8
235 , 3
234,0
234, .1.
233,8
236,0
246 , 6
255,3
257.1
262.1
268.3
-------
APPENDIX CJ TABLE 6.
RUN 10J SULPHUR ANN STONE CUMULATIVE BALANCE.
PAGE 2 OF 4
I
(V)
T 0 T A L S U 1. P H U R
BAY. HOUR K I L 0 M 0 L S
IN FLUE RFOEN FINES IN-OUT
5.2030
5.2130
5,2230
5.2330
6.0030
6, 01 30
6.0230
6.0330
6,0430
6.0530
6.0630
6.0730
6.0830
6.0930
6.1030
6.1130
6,1230
6.1330
6.1430
12,0530
12.0630
12.0730
12.0830
1 2 . 0930
12.1030
12.1130
12.1230
5.611
5,714
5,8.1.8
5.922
6,025
6,129
6,233
6.336
6,430
6.512
6,594
6.676
6,758
6,840
6,924
7,008
7,091
7,175
7.264
SHUT DOWN
7.378
7,479
7.589
7.699
7.812
7 . 926
8,040
8,155
1.301
1.321
1 ,345
1,370
1,393
1.415
1 ,437
1.465
1.490
1 ,514
1 , 538
1,565
1 , 593
1.61 6
1,641
1.663
1 , 686
1 . 709
1 , 737
AT 6.
1 , 770
1 , 799
1.830
1,856
1 , 885
1 , 907
1 . 928
1 . 950
2.784
2.847
2,935
3,008
3.10 1
3.175
3,269
3,352
3,446
3,538
3 . 606
3,654
3 . 732
3.783
3.843
3,899
3,955
4,011
4,070
1430 FOR
4,070
4,070
4 . 070
4 , 070
4 , 070
4.147
4.2.1.1
4.267
0.165
0.167
0.168
0, 174
0,176
0,178
0,180
0.182
0,184
0 . 1 9 1
0,193
0.196
0.198
0,201
0 . 2.03
0,208
0,213
0,222
0.230
134
0,239
0.275
0,375
0,381
0.386
0,392
0.399
0.403
1,361
1 . 380
1 . 370
1,370
1 ,356
:l. ,362
1,347
1 , 337
1 .309
1,269
1,256
1 , 262
1,235
1,239
1,237
1 . 238
1 , 237
1,234
1.226
HOURS
1 , 299
1 , 335
1.31 4
1,392
1.470
1.479
1,502
1,535
EQUIVALENT BURNT STONE
K I L 0 G R A ri 9
FEED REMOVED IN-GUT
408 . 2
4 1 5 , 9
419, 9
423,9
429. 1
433,8
434,9
435,6
436.3
438,2
440.9
443,9
445,8
448,6
460.2
470,7
474,5
477,4
479,7
479,7
479,7
494,0
521.2
521 ,2
522.3
530,6
544,6
133.5
.1.34,4
135.3
138.2
139,3
14-0,4
141,5
142.6
143,8
1 4 7 , 7
148,8
149.9
150,9
152.0
153. 1
156.1
162.1
173,0
183.9
194.8
229.3
312.2
316,1
319,9
323.8
329.4
331.9
274,7
281 ,5
284,7
285,6
289,8
293.4
293.4
292.9
292.5
290,4
292. 1
294.0
294,8
296,6
307,1
3 1 4 . 6
312,4
304,4
295,8
284,9
250,4
1 8 1 , 8
205. 1
201,3
198,5
201 ,2
212.7
-------
ro
uo
12.1330 8.268 1,973 4,323 0,405 1,560
SHUT DOWN AT 12,1330 FOR 5 HOURS
50, 4
217.3
12.
12.
:l 2 .
l 2 .
:l 2 ,
12.
13.
13.
i3«
13.
1 3 .
1.3.
1 3 .
:13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
13.
1 5)30
1930
2030
2130
2230
2330
0030
0130
0230
0330
0430
0530
0630
0730
0830
0930
1.030
1130
1230
1330
1430
1530
1630
1730
1830
13.1930
13.2030
13.2130
8 . 366
8,474
8.582
8 , 689
8,798
8,905
9,012
9, 120
9,228
9,337
9.447
9.556
9.663
9,769
9.878
9.983
10,088
10,193
10.298
10,404
10.510
10,616
10.722
10,830
10,937
11,044
11.152
11,258
1 , 994
2,015
2,035
2,055
2,075
2.094
2 . 1 1 2
2.129
2, 1.45
2. 163
2, 1.85
2.206
2.227
2,248
2.268
2,287
2,305
2,323
2,339
2.354
2 . 370
2.386
2.400
2 . 4 1. 4
2.428
2.441.
2.458
2.473
4,390
4.455
4,530
4,596
4,663
4,732
4 . 800
4,875
4.949
4.997
5,031
5,031.
5. 031
5,031
5,031
5,031
5.031
5.031
5.031
5,031.
5,031
5.1.07
5.1.87
5.2.62
5.344
5.426
5.514
5.578
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,407
. 4 1 0
, 4 .1. 4
,42:1
.426
.429
,432
,434
. 436
,439
,441.
,447
,450
,453
,543
,546
.548
,553
.556
,557
.608
,610
.61.1
.61.5
.616
,622
.628
,633
1
.1
1
:l.
1
.1
1.
I
1
1.
.1
1
1
'*
o
2
*>
A"..
2
o
A..
J>
->
if..
O
2
i
2
2
2
2
.576
,594
,604
,6.1.8
,634
.650
,669
,682
.698
,740
,790
,87.1.
,955
,037
,036
.119
.203
, 286
.372
.461
,500
,51.3
.525
.539
,549
,555
,553
,574
564,6
577,8
591. ,0
606.2
6 1 ? , 6
630.3
645.3
655,6
670.2
690.2
708,1.
724.9
742,7
742,7
750,6
752,5
752.5
752.5
752,5
767.3
782.3
797,8
8 1. 6 , 5
836.6
856 , 2
863.7
887.9
904,6
334 , 3
337,5
339,9
345,4
349,0
351.0
352,5
354.1.
355.6
357, 1
358.6
363,7
365,3
367,2
440,8
442,6
444.5
448,4
449.8
450.9
495.0
496,1.
497. 1
500,2
301.2
504,8
508 . 9
513,0
230,3
240,3
251 ,0
260, 9
270,6
279,3
292,7
301 .6
314,6
333,1.
349.5
361. ,2
377,4
375,6
309,8
309,9
308.0
304. 1
302,7
316.4
287.3
30:1. ,8
319.3
336.4
355.0
358,9
379,0
391 .7
-------
RUN 105
I
no
-t
i
APPENDIX C! TABLE 6,
SULPHUR AND STONF. CUMULATIVE BALANCE,
PAGE:
OF-"
DAY. HOUR
13,2230
13,2330
14.0030
14,0130
14.0230
14.0330
14.0430
14.0530
14.0630
14.0730
14,0830
14.0930
14,1030
14.1130
14,1230
14.1330
14,1430
14,1530
14.1630
14,1730
14,1830
14,1930
14,2030
14.2130
14.2230
14.2330
15.0030
15,0130
T
IN
11 ,364
11 .467
1 1 . 572
11,677
1 1 . 783
1 1 . 889
11.994
12,094
12.193
12.290
12.388
12.486
12.584
12,681
12.788
12.899
12.993
13,096
13,197
13.297
13,398
.1.3.498
13.597
13.697
13.797
13,897
13,997
14,097
0 T A L.
K 1 L
R..UE
2.489
2.504
2,521
2.537
2,553
2.569
2.585
2 . 600
•"> / i ~x
... * o .1. -J>
2.626
2.642
2,658
2.676
2,693
2 , 7 1 7
2/743
2.767
2.794
2,821
2.848
2,874
2 , 900
2.926
2.952
2.978
3.006
3,035
3 , 065
0
Fi'
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
S U I..
M C)
EGEN
,637
, 7 1 6
.800
,873
,873
, 873
,873
.939
,052
, 169
,240
,330
,405
,495
, 577
,666
. 733
.805
,873
,941
,005
,073
.142
, 2 1 1
.285
.351
,415
.485
P
f
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H U
L S
I NITS
.638
.645
.649
.652
, 656
,659
,662
,666
,673
,677
,680
,683
, 686
.691
,694
.696
.698
, 700
,702
.706
,708
. 7 1 0
. 7 1 3
.715
.717
,722
,724
,725
R
I N
*'. +
A'.. *
A*. +
A*. *
2 ,
A'.'! *
2.
2,
2,
2,
2.
2 ,
2 ,
2,
2,
2.
2,
2,
A'.. »
V.. *
2 ,
2*
*".. »
A'., t
2 *
/:. »
2,
A'_ »
EQUIVALENT BURNT STONE
•-OUT
599
602
602
6 1 4
701
787
874
889
855
8 1 9
827
814
8 1 7
803
80.1.
794
794
797
801
802
811
8.14
8 1 7
8 1 9
817
818
823
822
K I L.
FEF-D 1
9 1 4 , 4
930.4
930,4
930.4
930,4
930,4
930,4
930,4
930,4
930,4
930,4
930,4
930,4
930,4
930.4
930.4
930,4
930.4
930.4
930.4
930.4
930,4
930.4
930,4
930.4
930.4
930,4
930,4
0 G R A
^EMOVO
517,0
523,3
526,5
529,0
531 .4
533.9
536.3
538.8
543,9
546,3
548.5
550 , 6
552,8
556,9
558,8
560.3
561 .8
563,4
564.9
568.5
570. 1
571.8
573,5
575,1
576.7
580.5
581.8
582.7
h S
IrJ-OU'I
397.4
407. 1
403,9
4 01,4
398,9
396.5
394,0
391 ,6
386,5
384,0
381 ,9
379, 7
377.6
373,4
37:1. -6
370 . 1
368.5
3 6 7 , 0
365,5
361.9
360 . 3
358 , 6
356,9
355,3
353 , 6
349.8
348.6
347.6
-------
I
ro
15.0230
15,0330
15,0430
15,0330
15.0630
15,0730
15,0830
15.0930
15,1030
15,1.1.30
15,1.230
15.1330
15,1430
15,1.530
15.1630
15, 1730
15.1830
15.1930
15.2030
15,2.1.30
15,2230
15.2330
16.0030
16,0130
16.0230
i 6, 0330
16.0430
16.0530
16.0630
16.0730
16*0830
16.0930
16.1.030
16.1130
16.1230
16,1330
14, 196
14,296
14.395
14.494
14.592
14.690
14.789
1.4,886
1.4,988
15.087
1.5.186
1.5,287
1.5,389
1.5.483
15.578
15,682
1.5.778
1.5,876
1.5,975
16.075
1.6, 1.77
1.6,276
16,374
1.6.472
16.569
16.666
16.762
1.6.860
16,958
17.056
1.7.155
17.252
1.7.349
17.445
17,544
1.7.644
3,094
3. 1.24
3,152
3,180
3.208
3.238
3 , 268
3 . 298
3.330
3.362
3.394
3,427
3.461
3,492
3.525
3.559
3.592
3.627
3.662
3.697
3,733
3 , 768
3.806
3.848
3 ,890
3,931
3,970
3,997
4,028
4 . 066
4, 108
4. 152
4. 1.88
4,223
4 . 260
4 . 296
7,551
7,620
7,692
7,762
7.837
7.904
7,963
8.022
8.088
8,147
8,225
8 . 302
8,375
8.440
8 . 504
8,576
8,637
8 , 7 1 5
8.778
8,840
8 , 9 .1. 0
8.99.1.
9,047
9 . 1 1 2
9.1.59
9.196
9,264
9 . 325
9.380
9.433
9.485
9,534
9,600
9.685
9,761
9,761.
0,726
0,728
0,729
0.733
0,734
0,736
0,737
0,739
0,740
0.745
0,746
0,747
0,748
0.748
0.74?
0.753
0,754
0,755
0,756
0,757
0,758
0.762
0,764
0.765
0.767
0.768
0.770
0,781
0,782
0.782
0.783
0.783
0;784
0.784
0.785
0.785
2,825
2,824
2.821
2 . 8 1 9
2,812
2 , 8 1 3
2,821
2.827
2,829
2.833
2.821
2.812
2,804
2.801
2,800
2.794
2,795
2,780
2., 778
2,781
2,776
2.754
2.758
2.747
2.753
2.771
2 . 758
2.757
2.769
2.775
2,779
2,784
2.777
2 . 753
2,738
2.801
930,4
930,4
930 , 4
930,4
930,4
930,4
930.4
930.4
930.4
930.4
930 , 4
930.4
930,4
930,4
930,4
930.4
930.4
930.4
930,4
930.4
930,4
930.4
930,4
930,4
930.4
930.4
930.4
930.4
930.4
930.4
930,4
930.4
930.4
930.4
930,4
930 . 4
583.6
584.6
585.5
588.6
589.7
590.8
592,0
593. 1
594,3
598, 1
599,0
599,6
600,2
600,8
601 ,5
604.3
605.0
605,7
606.5
607.3
608.0
6 11.4
612.0
612.5
6 1 2 , 9
6 :l 3 . 4
6 1 3 . 9
622.0
622 , 4
622.7
623.0
623.4
623,7
624.0
624 . 3
624,6
3 4 6 , 7
345,8
344,9
3 4 1. . 7
3 40 , 7
339.5
338,4
337,2
336,1
332 -3
33.1. , 4
330.8
330. 1
329,5
329.9
326, 1
325.4
324,6
323,9
323, 1.
322.3
319,0
3 1 8 , 3
3 1. 7 . 9
317.4
3 1 7 , 0
316.5
308.4
308. 0
307.6
307.3
307.0
306.7
306.4
306 . 1.
305.7
-------
APPENDIX C! TABLE 6.
rv>
RUN 10!
DAY. HOUR
SULPHUR AND STONE CUMULATIVE
T 0 T A L. S U L F H U R
K I L 0 M 0 L S
IN
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
16.
1.430
1530
1630
1730
1830
1930
17.
17.
17.
18.
18.
18,
743
842
937
035
134
232
FL
4,
4,
4.
4.
4.
4,
UF
332
369
409
446
482
523
SHUT DOWN AT .1.
18.
18.
:ift.
18.
:i8.
18.
18.
18,
i8.
18*
0930
1030
1130
1230
1330
1430
1530
1630
1730
1830
18.
18.
18.
18.
18.
18.
18.
19.
19.
19.
SHUT
337
440
544
647
751
855
960
063
168
27.1.
DOWN
CHANGE TO
20.
21.
21.
21.
2.1 .
21.
2330
0030
0130
0230
0330
0430
0,
0.
0,
0.
0.
0,
129
259
389
520
651
780
4.
4.
4.
4,
4,
4,
4.
4.
4.
4.
AT
TJ
0.
0,
0.
0.
0.
0,
538
554
574
599
629
662
698
734
772
810
18.
REGF.N
9.
9.
9.
9,
9.
1 0 ,
761
76.1.
811
881
960
038
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.1930 FOR
10.
10.
10.
10.
10,
10.
10,
10,
10.
10,
1830
053
1.34
221
296
382
458
539
609
676
742
FOR 5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
MEDIUM VACUUM '
027
058
094
134
179
229
0.
0.
0,
0,
0,
0.
01.0
053
097
193
302
403
0
0
0
0
0
0
INES
. 786
,786
.862
,865
.868
.872
37
.876
,881
.888
, 888
. 888
.888
.888
,888
.891
.891
BALAI
IN -OUT
2.
1
*:. »
2 .
2.
2.
2.
864
925
854
843
824
799
HOURS
2.
2 .
2.
2,
'•>
*',. ,
2.
2,
2.
2.
2.
869
872
861
864
852
847
835
832
829
828
HOURS
RESIDUUM
,004
.007
,011.
,015
,019
, 02.2
0.
0.
0.
0.
0,
0,
FUEL.
088
1.41.
1.87
177
151
1.26
;E. PAGE 4 OF 4
EQUIVALENT BURNT STONE
K I L 0 G F1 A h S
FEED REMOVED IK-OUT
930.4
930,4
930.4
930.4
930.4
930.4
95.1. .9
951 ,9
95 J. ,9
951.9
951.9
951.9
951,9
951 .9
951,9
951.9
0.
0,
0.
0.
0,
0,
624.9
625.3
678.0
680.5
681.8
683.9
CJ O « J,
688 . 2
692,6
694.4
695.3
696 , 3
697 . 2
698 , 2
701,3
701,8
2,2
4.4
6,6
8 . 8
11,0
1 3 , 2
305.4
305, 1
252.3
249,8
248.6
246.5
265,8
263,6
259.3
257.5
256,5
255.6
254.6
253.7
250.5
250.0
--2,2
-4,4
--6,6
-8.8
-11. 0
- 1 3 , 2
-------
ro
ro
21,0330
21*0630
21,0730
21,0830
21.0930
0,907
1.031
1.153
1 , 272
1.403
0.279
0.330
0,379
0 . 420
0.476
0 , 500
0.390
0,678
0,763
0,843
0 . 026
0.030
0.034
0.037
0.041
0,1.01
0.081
0.061
0.044
0,043
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
15,3
1 7 . 5
19,6
2 1 . 7
23 , 8
-15.3
-17.5
-19. 6
-21,7
-23,8
SHUT DOWN AT 21,0930 FOR 6 HOURS
21
21
21
21
21
21
,1530
,1630
.1730
.1830
.1930
.2030
1,
1.
1,
1.
2.
2.
535
666
796
927
059
192
0.
0.
0.
0,
0.
0,
531
580
628
675
727
781
0,
0.
0.
0,
0.
1.
863
877
877
933
988
037
0.045
0 , 048
0,057
0,057
0 . 057
0,057
0 , 096
0,159
0 . 235
0 , 263
0 , 288
0.317
0.
0,
0,
0.
0.
0.
25
28
32
32
32
32
.9
.0
,2
,3
,4
.4
-25.9
-28,0
-32,2
-32 , 3
-32.4
-32,4
-------
APPENDIX 0; TABLE 7
SOLIDS REMOVED DURING RUN JO? KG* ^RAUi DATA; PA^E 1 i;
fjftY,HOUR QAS'R REGEH RFTG£i\< BOILER BOILER HrCLOWiTS
CYCLONE SACK FLUE
1,0700
1 -i A-: A A
J. + 4. UJ v" V-r'
1 , 1800
2,0040
2,0330
2,0600
2,1615
2,1800.
3,0615
3,1130
5,0500
5,0600
5, 1200
5,1800
5 , 2359
6 , 0600
6,1200
6, 1800
7, 1220
7,2345
8,0500
8,0305
8,1200
12,0700
12.0815
12,1200
12,1415
12,1805
12,2000
12 , 2245
13,0610
J. 3 , 0 915
13 , 1200
13,1540
13, 1820
13, 1840
13,2359
.i 4,0720
:;.';, 1200
; ,-Y ! o i'^i [•"•:
...
...
...
0 , 9 .1
-
0 , 9 1
-
0,91
2,04
-
-
-
0*63
L , i;.' /
0 , 45
1 , 3 6
0,91
0,91
0 , 9 1
-
...
_.
54,43
0,91
.._
0,91
-
_
0,91
0,91
0 , 9 1
...
0,91
-
-
0 , 9 1
0 , 9 1
0 * 9 1
0,91
0 , 9 1
_.
_.
2,27
0,9:i - 4,54
0,91
0 , 9 1
1.81 4,99
0,91 0*91 0,45
•( O I ™ «.
J. * W 1
~"*f l'^t ''I w*.
~ :'. , W ''V ~
_.
...
0 * 6 B ~ 2 8 , 1 2
1,59 - 4,54
0,45 1,31 1,81
0,91 0,9.!. 0,9 1
0,91 - 3,63
0,91
0,91 - 2,27
_
55,79
•-i -i -< -7
*:. j. , / /
- -
0,91 - 54,43
_
0,91 4,99 7,71
~
0,91 4,99
0,91 0,45 1,3.!
0,91 - 3,63
0,91 - 3,63
..
0,91 1,36 6 , 3 0
_.
-
0,9:1 0,45 4,54
0,91 0,91 9,07
0,91 0,45 5,90
0,91 0,45 6,8;,
/"i -".: '< '"'I A •"'. -" /' .' =
44,00
19.05
5,90
3,63
_
1 , S 1
10,43
1,81
-
-
1 , 3 1
1 , 8 1
10,43
5 <• 90
"V <• w' W
O •> W ^ .'"
i . 8 i
1 , 8 1
• 8 1
~
-
-
-
J , 8 1
_.
12,70
...
1 9 , 0 3
%5 I 1 ':'!•
7,26
'••.".' ; J 6
...
•'•; , 54
....
....
•"•; ~i -~:
13,6 i
i 3 , c- 1
. '\ ., ."", . '*;
A <": •-•
78,47
- 228 -
-------
APPENDIX Cl TAJra. £ 7
SOLIDS REMOVED DURING RUN 10. KG, CRAW DATA) i-A
DAY* HOUR SAS'R REGEM RE GEN BOILER DOIL.hR CYCLONES
CYCLONE BACK \-:L{.\Z
1 4 *
.15*
ii. 5 *
1. 5 *
1 5 *
16*
16*
16*
2359
0600
1200
1800
2359
0600
1700
1800
0*91
0*91
1*36
0 . 9 j.
0*91
1*04
27*22
0*91
0
0
i
0
1
0
0
.91
.91
* 3 6
* 9 1
« 36
.23
-
.91
0*
'\f •*
-
w" +
0*
'",1
.•*!. *
_.
-
45
23
23
45
72
3
-•
•~j
4
4
0
jC..
.\. "c"
+ '_J --^
.13
*76
-
.99
.45
-
* 72
-?
^
3
i
-J.
^
0
1
+ .Vn 'm!
* IS
.18
* SI
* 72
.45
-
.81
V *
0*
_
0 *
0 *
"7
29*
0*
45
llv •.. '
45
45
31
03
45
17*0300 36*29
13*0045 15.38
.L # * Os^o^J ™" &. o + / Cv ™ "" ~ .'. C' + ^. -i-
IS*1200 0*91 0*91 0*23 8.16 5.44 0*45
:S3*1SOO 0*91 0*91 0*23 2*72 2*72 0.45
19*0715 - - - - 7.48
•1 ~> 1 A '7 A _ i'. "i "7 O _. —
A / * j. V O V '_' '•J * / C>
19*1200 0*91 37*65 4,08 3*18 4,54
•') i\ A ^ ••'» i:" . — i "-i" <. 'i
..-. '-.•' •> \.- il H iJ J. O « w J.
20*1200 - - - - 4*54
21*1215 - - - - 13*61
21*1300 0*91 0*91 2*27 20*12 4,54
22*1200 0*91 0*91 - - 1-81
- 229 -
-------
APPENDIX C! TABLE' 8
ANALYSIS OF SOLIDS RiTriOvED DURING RUN 1C
CARBON WT + X
DAY. HOUR GftS'R RF/OEN KFGEN BOILER J50ILFR CYGLGNi-'S
CYCLONE BACK FLUE
•1
J.
2
•-i
2
3
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
12
'i '"'
.1. A.
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
1 4
15
15
i 5
15
16
16
16
13
18
J9
19
21
22
*
4
4
+
4
4
4
4
+
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
,
4
0700
0040
0600
1800
0615
0600
1200
1800
2359
0600
1200
1800
0700
1200
.1 805
1200
2245
0610
1200
1840
2359
0720
1200
1800
2359
0600
1200
1800
2359
0600
1200
1800
1200
1800
1030
1200
1800
1200
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
1
~
4
t
4
4
~
,
4
t
t
4
*
4
4
«.
4
*
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
+
4
4
-
4
*
*
96
17
82
38
17
17
47
20
IS
05
10
12
10
05
14
35
26
85
61
05
05
05
42
14
14
13
49
05
16
28
05
23
57
19
_
04
04
0,
1,
-
04
04
0 4
0.
0,
0,
0,
0 +
-
0«
0,
04
04
0,
0,
0 4
0.
0,
0*
04
V 4
0 4
0,
0,
0,
0.
0.
0 +
3*
1 4
'••>•' *
0.
28
10
59
72
13
05
05
05
05
05
05
OS
05
05
14
05
05
12
07
20
05
13
14
05
05
0.5
08
10
12
06
05
16
84
05
06
_.
-
_.
17 + 80
-
-
_
-
2.37
2,43
-
-
-
0,76
-
-
-
-
-
-
i •-> "i'
.!. + / si
-
_
_
3,74
-
-
_
13,40
-
._
-
0 , 75
-
-
,30,60
'"\ 'T / '"i
-
0,89
0,60 ' 9,24
.1 ,22
1 * 32 2i-j + 89
-
-
- -
3,23 30,10
,.
_
0,90
_
0 , 6 6 6 , 3 4
_ _
2*49
0,55 9.42
1*97 4*80
-
-
2,70
0,60 4,60
4 , i 4
_
0,74 1,59
0,48 15,80
_
_
...
0,72 25,80
_.
_
fl -_" ,•-• ".;'-"; ~? A
2,08 ; ' R * 3 O
-
...
3*59 54,70
2,97 40,50
-•
-
_
-
6, 84
—
11,09
-
-
9,93
5,42
6, 96
_
-
-
-
-
-
0 4 96
-
_.
2,00
-
_
-
i + '"• \?f
0,64
-
i , .;. 6
5,34
10,50
_.
6 , 4 '•',
6 , .!. 2
6,11
_.
.( 7,50
4,36
*i~ '! W /
- 230 -
-------
APPENDIX CJ TABLE 9
ANALYSIS 0:r SOLIDS REMOVED DURING RUN :i 0
3 U L P H A T E S U L. P H U R WT%
DAY. HOUR' GAS'ft ftEGEN AF-'GEN BOILER BOILER CYCLONES
CYCLONE SACK FLUE
1 .0700
2.0040
2.0600
2.1800
3,0615
5.0600
5,1200
5. 1800
5.235?
6.0600
6.1200
6.1800
12.0700
12. 1200
12.1805
12,2000
12,2245
13.0610
33,1200
13,1840
13,235?
14,0720
.14.1200
14, 1300
•( f. ••".•"'="0
.*. i -i *^. O •„.' /
15 , 0600
15,1200
IS , 1800
•j =", <-> ~z =• o
-i- •— • , A.. •».' w i
1 6 , 0600
16,1200
16,1800
13,1200
18,1800
19,1030
19, 1200
2'1 , 1300
,:'2. 1200
_
0,01
0,01
0.08
0.01
_
0.01
0,01
0.01
0 . 0 1
0,01
0.01
0,01
0,0:1
_
0,01
0,01
0 . 0 1
0,01
0,01
0.01
0,13
0,01
0 , 0 1
0,01
0,01
0,13
0.04
0,01
0 , 22
0,01
0,01
0.01
0,01
-
0,01
0.06
0 , 1 4
_
0,44 - 1,57
0.47 - 1,24
0.01 2.78 2,66
0 , 07
_
1,06 - -
0 * ? 7 - 1 . 4 3
0.24 5.7?
0,86 6,2?
0,99 - 2,97
0,71
1,01 - 1.72
1,42
__ _
0.95 4.76 1.92
0*3 8 — 1 , 2 5
0 . 0 :i
0.-* "y „. ,„
+ >1Y -.J
0.82
0,01 2,96 2,01
0,01
0,01
0,01 - 1,55
0,50 2,51 2,07
0,61 - -
0*75 ™ -
0*78
0,51 4.39 1,79
0 , 4 1
0 , 0 1
O + O 1 "~ *~ * :--1' ;-:
0.01 8,40 2,98
0,01
0 , 0 1
0.01 0,76 3,20
•t "•'•' 't - '<. •'"" ' O :"';
J. » \J J. .t. •> -^ A'.'. ••• * t W
0,35
2,68
.1 .17
_
1.05 0,01
_ _
1.01
_
2,05
0,01
0,01
0.01
_
3,61
-
2.C4
2,06
2,20
0 , C :i
...
1,67
2,15 0,01
,••*, .-. ,-•
».•: , <>.•' a ~
_.
2,93
2,01 0,01
0,01
-
0,01
2 v 5 6 0,01
0,12
—
.! ,35 0.01
3,43 0,55
<) , 0 1
~
1,5? 0,42
i O '". • C j
* 0.6O
- 231 -
-------
APPrTNDIX C* TABLE 10
AN A I., r SIS OF SOLIDS RTHOVED DURING RUN 10
T 0 T A i. S IJ L P H Li R WT,%
DAY* HOUR G'AS'R REGEN RcGEN BOILER &GILER CYCLONES
CYCLGNF.: BACK FLUE!
1 , 0700
2*0040
2,0600
2,1800
3,0615
5,0600
5,1200
5,1800
5,2359
6,0600
6.1200
6, 1800
12,0700
12,1200
12,1805
12,1200
12,2245
13,0610
13,1200
13. 1840
•i T --/"'nrg
.-. w + *;. T-J •—* 7
1 4 , 0720
14,1200
:i4. 1800
14,2359
15,0600
:l 5, 1200
15,1300
15,2359
16.0600
16, 1200
16, 1800
J3,1200
18. 1800
19. 1030
1 9, 1200
21.1800
22,1200
_
4*45
5,44
6,82
7,11
_
5,43
4,88
cr -•<, -;>
•~t + A-t -._'
b , U /
4 , 3 4
4,34
2. , 22
2,86
-
2,28
2,64
3 ,49
3 , 3 7
3,14
2,88
4.64
3,29
3,02
3,49
3,51
3,37
3,77
~j j. i
•-> + \./ j.
3 , 48
4,02
4,26
3,44
3 * 23
-
5,04
? » 6 i
6,23
„
3,47
4,01
6,49 3 * 0 4
6,90
_
4 » 4 7
3,99
3,93 S,40
3,90 8,85
'7 K "!'
•-.' , vj *_•
3,83
1,64
1,78 10., 20
_
:U60
1 , 99
2,63
•-j sr er
/: + *.' -..i
1 O O
.1. * / i.. '
2,03 8 , 0;"'
wv , *t W ~"
2,86
jc.' + / Cl; ~"
3,17 5,84
2,85
3,13
3 * 0 2
••- ,->, ~{ -; ,-r ,-,
-------
APPENDIX C
TABLE 11
RUN 10 - LIMESTONE FEED PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
SIEVE SI
IN MICRONS
SAMPLE
NUMBER
50734
50735
50735
50742
50750
50754
50765
50775
50781
50790
50328
50847
50851
50861
50877
50887
50889
50959
50988
50998
51018
DAY-
TIME
,0000
,0000
, 0000
1,2359
2,0600
2, 1800
5,1200
5,1800
6,0001
6,0600
6.1200
12. 1200
12,2000
12,2359
13, 1200
13. 1830
13,2359
15,2359
18,1230
18,1800
19. 1200
3200
2800
.4
,5
,4
,9
1.5
.3
.1
.3
,3
, 3
, 3
.3
,3
+ A;,
,4
* *U
,4
1 ,1
,4
,4
,4
2SOO
1400
12,1
17,8
1 5 , 6
16,8
13,4
10, 1
6, 1
12,6
9,7
12,8
7 , 9
18,7
10.3
11.5
11,9
13.7
12.0
11.2
3,9
1 2 ., 3
1 2 . 4
1400
1.180
WT , P
9, .1.
12,0
12.3
12,5
9,8
8.7
7 t 2
10,3
7,9
10,1
7,0
8,7
8,4
9.8
9.1
10.8
9,4
9.0
9,1
9.6
9,8
1180
850
ERCENT.
20.0
24,9
25,6
26 , 9
21,5
20 , 0
20,0
2 3 , 6
25,7
21,0
24.4
19.5
18,5
2 1 , 3
19,7
23. 1
20,2
19,0
20,5
20,6
20.6
850
600
22 , 3
26,8
25,7
13.0
25.1
24,2
31.8
26.7
24.3
23,7
22.9
22.1
22,1
24.0
22 . 7
24.5
22,4
21 .9
24,2
22 . 3
.23,4
6
•-,
*i.
27
16
17
25
23
28
30
T>'.>
25
25
29
24
2?
26
27
23
'~~.1 ~>
28
30
26
26
00
50
,9
* 3
.8
.5
.8
,6
,8
,5
+ /
, 9
,0
,5
, 3
,9
,9
,8
,8
. 1
,7
,6
, 6
25
15
c:;
V..1 *
1 ,
1 .
3 ,
3 ,
r.'.
3,
2,
4 ,
4,
6 ,
4.
~7
4,
5,
*. t
4,
6*
6 ,
5,
4 ,
0
0
9
1
5
0
4
8
0
7
A
*'..
1
4
2
A
7
8
9
TJ
9
1
cr
150
100
1,2
,1
,4
,4
, 3
1 ,1
, 1
* O
.9
.8
1 , 1
* 6
1 , 7
, 7
1 ,2
,4
, 6
1 ,0
1 .6
1 ,0
1 . 0
100
1 .0
,4
,6
1, 1
1 , 1
1.3
.9
,8
1,1
1.0
1 ,4
1,2
2 . 2
1.4
1.5
.9
2 . 4
2,5
2,8
.1 .9
1 , 3
- 233 -
-------
APPENDIX 0 J TABLE 12
RUN 10 - GASIFIER BED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
SIEVE SIZE IN MICRONS
SAMPLE
NUMBER
50736
50737
50743
50752
50761
50764
50766
50778
50732
50791
50798
5083-4
50840
50841
50854
50856
50863
50878
50885
50890
50899
50913
50921
50926
50933
50943
50949
50957
50966
50975
50980
50990
51001
51009
51020
5.1027
DAY-
TIME
.0000
1.2359
2.0600
2.1200
2,1800
3.0615
5.1200
5.1800
6.0001
6.0600
6.1200
6.1800
12.0700
12.1200
12.2000
12.2359
13.0600
13.1200
13,1830
13.2359
14,0600
14.1200
14.1800
14.2359
15.0600
15.1200
15.1800
15.2359
16.0600
16.1130
16.1800
18.1200
18,1800
19,1200
21.1800
22,1200
3200
2800
.3
.2
.2
.0
2.7
.1
.1
» 2
,2
,2
.1
.2
,1
O
» .c.
.1
,1
.3
.1
.2
.3
.0
, 3
.4
.3
,3
.2
.0
. 3
« 3
1,4
,2
,2
. 3
.2
.1
1,7
2800
1400
9.0
6 . 3
6.3
3.8
7.5
•w.1 + £}
5 , 6
5.5
5.1
5.6
5,5
5.6
6.3
7.4
7.0
6.9
8.7
7.0
9.1
6.6
5.7
6.6
6.4
6,1
5.6
3,7
4,6
5,5
6.2
6.8
5.2
4,3
2,9
3,5
2.4
6,0
1400
1130
UIT. PE
12,4
9.2
9,4
6,4
10.2
9.5
9,3
9,4
8,8
2.4
9.4
9.7
10.4
11,3
10.9
10.7
12.4
11.1
12.8
9.9
9.7
11.0
10,7
10,5
10,0
7,6
9.3
10.6
11,5
11,1
10,6
8,8
7,1
7.5
6,7
9.3
1180
850
^RCENT.
28,7
23,7
24,8
2.1 ,4
25 . 4
25.9
25.2
25.4
24,3
27,3
26,3
26,7
26 . 1
27,2
26,2
25,3
27,6
28 . 4
29,5
25,2
25.3
26 . 9
26.8
26.7
26,9
24 , 2
26 . 4
28,0
29.2
27,7
28,6
26,6
24 , 8
25,2
25.7
27,3
850
600
28.7
29.6
30 , 6
32 , 5
28,8
31 ,0
30,3
30,5
29 , 8
32,9
30,2
32,1
28 . 6
28.5
27,7
27,7
27,6
29,7
28,5
27,5
29,0
28,8
28,9
29 , 0
30 , 1
32,0
3 .1 , a
30,5
30 , 1
28,9
30,9
3 1 , 1
32 , 2
3.1 .6
33,6
29.2
600
250
20,5
30.4
28.5
34.6
25.1
27,7
29,0
28,2
30 , 3
31 ,0
27,7
25 . 5
27,1
24,7
25.9
27.6
22,7
23 , 3
19.8
27,5
28.7
25,8
26,1
27,0
26.8
32.0
27.9
24.9
22,6
23,8
24,4
28,7
32,2
31,3
30,9
25,5
250
150
.3
.5
, 1
,9
,2
,1
,2
, 3
,3
, 3
, 3
.2
1 ,0
,5
1.3
1,1
.3
,3
. 1
2,0
1 . 1
,5
.5
,3
,3
,2
,0
, I
,1
, 1
, 1
,2
,3
,4
,4
,6
1 50
100
,0
,0
.0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
.0
,0
,0
* 0
.0
,0
,2
, 1
,0
.0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
.0
,0
.0
,0
. 0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
.0
.0
100
,0
,2
,0
.4
,1
.1
,2
,4
1 ,2
,3
,7
,2
.A
,2
, 7
.5
,3
,1
,1
1 . 0
.5
,1
.2
,1
..1.
,0
,0
,1
.0
,1
,1
••p
,3
,2
, 3
,4
- 234 -
-------
APPENDIX C : TABLE 13
RUN 10 - REGENERATOR BED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
SIEVE SIZE IN MICRONS
SAMPLE
NUMBER
DAY-
TIME
3200
2800
2800
1400
1.400
1180
1 1 80
850
850
600
600
250
250
1 50
150
100
100
UT. PERCENT,
50738
50744
50760
50763
50767
50777
50783
50792
50799
50835
50839
50842
50855
50857
50864
50879
50886
50891
50900
50912
50920
50927
50935
50944
50950
50958
50967
50976
50981.
50991
51002
51008
51011
SI 021
51.028
1,2359
2*0600
2,1800
3,0615
5,1200
5.1800
6,0001
6,0600
6,1200
6,1800
12.0700
12.1200
12.2000
12,2359
13.0600
13.1200
13,1830
13.2359
14.0600
14.1200
14.1800
14.2359
15.0600
15.1200
15.1800
1.5.2359
16,0600
16, 1.130
16,1800
18.1200
18.1800
19,1030
19.1200
21*1800
22.1200
.0
,0
.2
3,0
.2
,1
,3
,1
.1.
.2
.2
,2
, 2
.1
.1
,2
,1
.2
,2
,2
,1.
, 2
,2
.2
,1
, 1
t o
, A'.
,2
.2
.2
.2
,4
,1
.4
3,9
5.5
5.2
7.0
4,6
4.6
5,2
4,7
4,7
5,4
6,7
7 * 3
6.6
7.0
7 . 4
8,2
7,2
7,3
6.1
6 , 6
6.5
5.9
6,4
5,5
5,4
4,9
5.0
4,9
4 . 7
3.3
3.3
2,7
3,5
3,0
2,1
7*0
8,9
8,9
10,3
7,8
8.0
8,5
8.3
8,6
8,9
.10,2
11.3
1 0 . 5
10,7
11.4
12.2
11,2
10.4
9*9
11.1
1.1.1
10.4
1 0 * 8
10*3
10.5
10.2
9,8
9,6
9,9
7 . 6
7.7
6,7
7,5
7.6
5, 3
22.3
25,0
25,3
25,9
22 , 9
2.3 . 8
23,8
23,7
24 , 3
26,5
26.5
27,0
25,8
26 , 6
26.7
29.0
28,6
26,9
26,4
27,2
27.4
26.7
27,5
27.5
28,2
v. / , B
27,2
27,4
27,5
24,5
24.8
22.7
23, .9
27,2
22,5
30*
31.
31.
28,
30.
30.
30.
30.
30.
32.
28.
28,
28,
28,
27,
28.
30 ,
28.
28.
29,
28,
29,
29,
30.
30,
31 .
30,
30 ,
31,
30,
30.
31 .
30 .
32.
31. .
8
2
4
5
4
•w.'
7
8
9
5
7
4
2
3
7
9
0
4
9
1
9
8
3
£.
2
0
7
8
0
9
9
6
5
o
4
33.7
29.3
28.8
25 . 1
33.7
31.8
30,7
31 .7
31,1
2 6 + 6
26.8
25 . 0
27,4
26.5
.25.7
21.2
22.6
26,3
27,9
25,4
25,5
26 , 7
25.5
26,3
25,5
25,7
26,9
26,9
26.4
32 . 8
32.0
35,3
33.4
28.8
37 . 9
1,8
.2
, 2
,2
,3
.9
,5
,4
,1
,0
,8
,6
1 , .1
,7
. 7
, 1
.1
, 6
» 6
.2
, 3
* \,.*
.2
,1
, 1.
,1
, 1
,2
, 1
,5
.7
.5
"7
,3
,4
.0
,0
,0
,0
,0
, 2
,0
,0
.0
, 0
.0
.0
.0
.0
,0
,0
.0
,0
,0
,0
.0
,0
.0
, 0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
,0
.0
,0
,0
.5
,0
.0
,1
.2
, 2
.3
,1
, 1
.0
,2
, 2
,2
. 1.
.1
.2
. 1
.0
.0
.1.
.1
,0
.0
,0
.0
.1
.0
* !2
.0
. 1
.2
.2
.1
.0
.2
- 235 -
-------
RUN 10
APPENDIX c : TABLE: 14
GASIF1ER CYCLONE DRAIN PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION.
SIEVE SIZE IN MICRONS
SAMPLE
NUMBER
50759
50784
50793
30830
50866
50893
50925
50936
50954
50960
50968
50986
50933
Si 003
51023
51029
2
6
6
6
13
13
14
15
15
15
16
16
18
18
21
2?
DAY-
TIME
.1800
,0001
,0600
,1500
.0600
,2359
, 2359
, 0600
, 1800
,2359
,0600
.1800
.1200
,1800
.1800
.1200
3200
2800
.3
,0
.0
.0
.0
,0
1.6
.0
.0
.0
.0
,0
.0
,0
. 6
.0
2800
1400
3.5
.6
,6
1,4
2,5
1 . 6
3.2
1 ,6
2.1
1 ,7
1 ,0
6,8
,0
.0
» 6
.7
.1.400
1180
WT,
5,0
1 .4
1 .4
2,6
4,2
4,8
4,8
4.9
3.1
3 , 5
1,0
13,6
2,9
2.0
1,2
,7
1180
850
PERCENT,
.1 4 . 8
4.5
5,0
10,1
.1 1 . 8
9.5
1 2 , 9
1 3 , 1
.1. .1 , 3.
9.8
7,0
29,5
5,9
4,0
5,5
2,9
850
600
19,2
8,5
9,5
21.1
1 6 . 5
19.0
:l. 7 , 7
19,7
1 7 . 5
1 6 , 8
.1 3 . 0
27.3
8,8
6 , 0
9,8
5,8
600
250
34.4
34.2
38,5
49.4
39,5
49,2
38 . 7
4 1 , 0
39.2
35,8
34,0
1 5 . 9
36,8
22,0
~2 & /.
•-.' / + •_.•
22, 3
250
150
8*8
35.2
19.8
2,8
1 0 . 9
9,5
11,3
8,2
8*2
5,8
8,0
o 4 -;
23,5
28,0
18,3
21,6
:l :~iO
100
2,8
13,9
6 . 0
.1. , 2
3.4
, 0
, 0
,0
, 0
1 * 2
1 ,0
*0
, 0
,0
5,5
1 0 , 1
.1.00
.1 1 , 0
1.7
1 9 . 3
1 1 . 3
11,2
6 , 3
o •?
/ * /
11.5
13,6
25,4
35,0
4,5
22,1
38 , 0
18,9
36 , 0
- 236 -
-------
APPENDIX C
t\j
-------
CAFB RUN 10 UNIT PERFORMANCE
K
90
80
5 70
i*- ..„
u. 60
IE80
S| 25
^5 20
H. O
£fc l5
5S8
6
LJ
-J 4
o = _
o 0
980
u
Q° 960
uj u
00 §940
y I 920
tuj
w I 900
C9 U
K 880
860
2^400
a
iij
CD
200
100
24
20
l6
12
_L
01'00 02'00 03-00 OS'OO 06-00
_L
-L
12-00 13-00 14-00
TIME, DAY HOUR
-L
_L
15-00 16-00
18-12 21-00
22-00
FIG. C34
- 238 -
-------
APPENDIX D
CAFB OPERATORS MANUAL
Contents* 240
CAFB Pilot Plant 242
Operating Procedures 285
Note: This appendix comprises the working instructions
used during Run 10. The contents (page 240)
listing referes to the numbers on page headings.
- 239 -
-------
CON TENTS
Page No.
I. CAFE PILOT PLANT
Introduction
Flow Plan and Layout
Gasifler - Regenerator Unit
Process Control
Fuel Systems
(a) Heavy Fuel Oil
(b) Kerosene
(c) Propane
(d) Bitumen
(e) Gas Oil
Fines Return System
Stone Feed System
NS System to Transfer Pulsers
Main Burner Description
Analytical Sampling and Instrumentation
Boiler and Pressurlzatlon System
Safety Alarm Systems
Location of Electrical Components and Fuses
LiquidN2 Tank System
FIGURES
Figure 1 Process Flow Plan of Continuous Unit
Figure 2 Layout of Pilot Plant Equipment
Figure 3 Layout of Gasifier-Regenerator (Mk II)
Figure 4 Diagram of Instrumentation Systems
Figure 5 Schematic Diagram of Manometers/Pressure Switches
Figure 6 Schematic Diagram of Pressure Tappings on Unit
Figure 7 Schematic Diagram of Heavy Fuel Oil System
Figure 8 Schematic Diagram of Bitumen System
Figure 9 Bitumen Trailer
Figure 10 Front (Towbar) End of Trailer
Figure 11 Gas Oil and Compressed Air Supplies to Bitumen Heating
Burners
Figure 12 Gas Oil Supply for Burner Fuel Tank and Purging Points
Figure 13 Pines Return Systems
Figure 14 N- Systems to Transfer Pulsers
Figure 15 Main Gas Burner
Figure 16 Flow Diagram for Gas Analysing Equipment
Figure 17 Schematic Diagram of Boiler Flue Gas Sampling System
Figure 18 General Plant Layout.
Figure 19 Bitumen System Air Compressor
1A
1A
1A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
4A
4A
5A
5A
5A
5A
7A
7A
1? A
20A
24A
25A
26A
27A
28A
29A
}OA
31A
52A
?3A
34A
35A
36A
37A
38A
39A
40A
41A
- 240 -
-------
CONTENTS f continued1)
?0 General Assembly of Cut-off Valve 42A
?1 At.omiser 4^A
Figure ?? Cetting Instructions f->r 'S' Type Thermostat 44A
II. OPERATING PROCEICTE3
Safety 1
Fuel and Ng Supply Prerun Cheeks ^
(a) Heavy Fuel Oil 2
(b) Bitumen System Preparation ?
(c) Operating the Bitumen Heat up Burners -j
(d) Operating the Bitumen Trailer 5
(e) Operating the Bitumen Ring Main 4
(f) Standby Bitumen Pump Operation 4
(g) Bitumen Pump Calibration 4
(h) Gas Oil Supply to Service Tank and Purge Lines 5
(1) Kerosene 6
(J) Nitrogen 6
(k) Propane 6
Boiler and Systems Prerun Checks 6
Gasifler Prerun Checks 7
Gasifler Warm Up ti
Preheat Burner Light Up 8
Preheat Burner Flame Out 10
Heavy Fuel Oil Pump Calibration 10
Change from Propane to Kerosene 10
Starting Stone Feed 1^-
Boiler Clean Out 12
Start Main Flame Pilot Light 13
(a) Main Flame Out i"?
(b) Main Flame On 1J*
Change from Kerosene Combustion to Fuel Oil Combustion ^
Change over from Combustion to Gasification ^5
On Gasification l6
Trouble-Shooting on Steady State Conditions l6
p-i
Planned Shutdown on Gasification -'
(a) With Sulphation '"•>
(b) Without Sulphation 25
25
Emergency Shutdown J
?6
Carbon Burn Out
- 241 -
-------
1A
I. CAFB PILOT PLANT
INTRODUCTION
A continuous CAFB gasifler pilot plant has been constructed at the Esso Research
Centre to provide a demonstration of the CAFB process under continuous operating
conditions and to provide a means for studying those operational variables which
cannot be measured in batch reactors. Features of the pilot plant are summarised
here.
FLOW PLAN AND LAYOUT
Figure 1 is a process flow plan of the continuous pilot plant. The heart of the
system is the gaslfier-regenerator unit cast of refractory concrete contained in
an internally insulated steel shell. The product gas of the gasifier fires a 10
million Btu/hr pressurised water boiler. The hot water is heat exchanged with a
secondary water circuit which loses its heat through a forced convection cooling
tower, The rest of the system consists of the necessary blowers, pumps and
instruments to operate the gasifler, regenerator, burner and solids circulating
system.
Figure 2 shows the layout of the pilot plant equipment within its building. The
gasifler Itself sits within a pit to permit alignment of the gasifier outlet duct
with the burner inlet. Fuel pumps, flow meters, and start up burner controls are
mounted on a mechanical equipment console in the control room. Electrical
instrumentation and manometers are mounted in a separate control cabinet in the
control room. Gasifler blowers are located in a separate blower house outside the
main building, and the cooling tower is mounted on the roof.
GASIFIER - REGENERATOR UNIT
The gasifier and regenerator reactors are cylindrical cavities in a refractory
concrete block which is insulated and enclosed in a steel casing as shown In
figure 3 which is a vertical section through the gasifier and regenerator axes.
The gasifier is 23" Dia. at the base, flares to 26" at 32-|" from the bottom and
then flares more gradually to 28" Dia. over the next 95" giving an overall inside
height of 127^". The axis of the regenerator is parallel to that of the gasifier
and 27" from it. Diameter of the regenerator is 7-5" at the base and flares to
10" Dia. at 43" level. Above that level the regenerator bore is constant at 10"
over 89" of height, giving a total height of 132". Tops of both reactor cavities
are level; bottom of the regenerator is 4^" lower than that of the gasifier.
The block contains other cavities which make up the cyclone inlets and transfer
lines through which solids circulate between gasifler and regenerator. It also
contains a vertical ceramic paper separator which divides it into two separate
blocks which can expand Independently.
The gasifler air distributor is circular and contains 16 nozzles. The outer 12
nozzles (which are arranged in a circle about the centre) have two rows of
horizontal holes (8 holes and 6 holes) ) the inner 4 nozzles arranged in a
square about the centre are located in a depression in the middle of the
distributor and have 22 holes in three rows. The holes in the outer nozzles are
0.12" diameter, whereas the inner nozzle holes are 0.1285" diameter.
- 242 -
-------
2A
PROCESS CONTROL
Figure 4 is a diagram of the pilot plant instrumentation system. Automatic contrc-
boxes are used to regulate regenerator temperature and regenerator bed level, and
gasifier bed level. A packaged pressurlsatlon system maintains constant boiler
cooling water pressure and temperature. All other systems are manually controlled
by the process operator. Dashed lines in Figure 4 show the indicators and
control valves normally used by the operator. Manometers indicate pressures and
pressure differences in most applications. In four Instances pressure differences
are also detected by pneumatic delta pressure cells and transmitted to recorders.
Pressure switches also are employed in several locations to operate warning lights
for abnormal conditions.
A detailed schematic diagram of the layout of the manometers, differential pressure
cells and pressure switches is given in figures 5 and 6.
FUEL SYSTEMS
(a) Heavy Fuel Oil
A schematic diagram of the heavy fuel oil system is shown in figure 7-
(b) Kerosene
Kerosene Is used as a warm up fuel and is stored in a 500 gallon tank located below
ground level at the back of building JF close to the blower house. A hand lift
pump transfers the fuel to two 50 gallon drums located above the tank.
Inside building JF the kerosene passes through a fuseable firevalve before joining
the heavy fuel oil line as shown in figure 7-
Propane Is stored in a bulk tank located between building 3F and central stores.
The offtake line passes underground to a valve on the outside of building 3F. It
then branches, one line goes to the CABF pilot plant, whereas the other goes to
the boiler house.
(d) Bitumen
A schematic diagram of the bitumen fuel system is shown in figure 8.
Minlstatlc Trailer
A detailed drawing of the bitumen trailer is shown in figure 9.
The original 'LISTER' twin-cylinder dlesel engine has been replaced by a 10 H.P.
3ph AC electric motor (d) rotating at 1440 rpm, tow bar end of the trailer.
The output shaft from this motor is provided with two ribbed pulleys; one drives the
rotary vane compressor at 1000 rpm, whilst the other drives a hydraulic pump (b) at
about motor speed. A hydraulic control valve (19) selects pump delivery on
reverse or neutral positions. This pump energises a hydraulic motor (c) which is
connected to the Barclay Kellett gear pump (a). The latter is fitted internally
in the bitumen tank and can either circulate the hot bitumen inside the tank or
discharge through the swivel pipe (41) through the 3-way valve (38). Lever (59) at
positions CIRCULATE or EELIVERY respectively (see figure 9'
- 243 -
-------
3A
Details
a) The Barclay Kellet gear pump (36) is type 33 x 8T has a capacity of 4000 g.p.h.
and 50 p.s.i.
b) The hydraulic sear pump (16) is a Dowty type GP2/85AU.
o) The hydraulic motor (17) is an ADAN Hydraulic Orbit Motor, type OMP-28.
d) BROOKS AC Motor, Frame C254, Serial No. L8?207 10 H.P., 1440 rpm, 400/440 volts.
Items 2, 3, and 4 are mounted undercover at the tow bar (front) end of the trailer,
wit'i the electric motor contactor adjacent on the trailer chassis. (See figure 10)
The following equipment ia provided on the rear end of the trailer (refer to figure
11).
1) A dial type thermometer (30) 50 - 400 °P, which has electrical contacts and
a pointer which can be set to the maximum bitumen temperature required.
When this predetermined temperature is attained the contacts close and
operate the solenoid valve (42), cutting the air pressure to the burners
(one per hematite tube) and to the diaphragm cut off valve (12), automatically
shutting off the oil supply to the burners.
11) A tank capacity gauge (29) with dial indication of 1000-6000 gallons in
Increments of 500 gallons- Normal minimum reading is 1000 gallons, which
is the safe level to cover the heating tubes.
ill) A Mowbrey magnetic switch (31) which operates the solenoid valve (42) on
the air line and shuts off the burners when the tank contents fall to
about 6" above the heating tubes.
When the bitumen predetermined maximum temperature is reached the thermometer (30)
contacts will close, energising the solenoid valve (42) on the air supply and
exhausting the air to atmosphere. Thus the oil cut-off valve to each burner is
activated and the burner, deprived of both air and oil, is extinguished.
The solenoid valve is also energised by the Mowbrey float switch operating on a low
bitumen level condition. The above sequence of events follows.
Details
29) Tank Capacity Gauge
Supplied by Bayham, Basingstoke.
30) Thermometer
Supplied by Municipal Appliances, manufacturer of the trailer unit 12 Volts
D.C.
31) Magnetic Switch
Mobrey Type S01/P02 No. 6605 12 volts D.C.
42) Solenoid Valve
Trlst Lucifer Cat. No. 321B 05. 220 p.s.i. - 9/16" orifice, 12 volts DC.
- 244 -
-------
Air Compressor Drwg No. 88598(3) (pig 19)
This is a rotary vane compressor, suitable for pressures of 3 - 15 p.s.i., and
operates normally at 1000 rpm.
Oil Burning Equipment
a) Oil Cut-Off Valve - Print B102? (pig 20)
(see page3 )
b) Atomiser - Print 1123 (Fig 21)
(see page 3)
o) Flame Failure Thermomstat 1 B1018 (Fix 29) (Samuel Lee-Bapty, TypeS, Max. Temp.
(see page 3 , 12000p)
d) Fuel Supply to the Burners
(see page 3)
(e) Gas Oil
Gas oil is supplied to replenish the Bitumen Trailer Heating Burner storage tank and
to provide gas oil purging on the Bitumen piping system, (see figure 12).
The road tanker is provided with four compartments numbered 1,2,3, and 4 from the
front. The capacity of each is 500 Imperial Gallons except No. 4, which will
contain only 300 Imperial gallons. Each compartment is provided with a quick-
opening foot valve (Gl) actuated by a handwheel accessible from the catwalk
on top of the tank. Also, each compartment's outlet pipe terminates in a spring
loaded, normally closed, quick acting valve (G2) operated by a special key which
can retain the valve in the open position.
The first three compartments have been manifolded with a Worcester valve (03) on the
outlet. A flexible hose connects this to the rigid f" B.S. black pipe located in a
shallow trench across the hardstandlng to the electrically driven gear pump (P),
whose starting gear is mounted on the adjacent wall of Building 3P. Prom the pump,
pipework is laid beside the kerb to the portable trailer unit (P.T.U.). Also a
tee branch and valve (G4) provides a purge to Inside the boiler house. Thus, gas
oil from the road tanker can be pumped to either the P.T.U. or to the purge points
on the bitumen lines feeding the gasifier.
The riser pipe on the P.T.U. has two valved flexible branches. Valve (G5), "hen
open will fill the 50 gallon gas oil service tank for supplying the P.T.U. burners.
Valves (G6 & 7) will provide purge gas oil to the ring main and the standby pump
manifolding.
Fines Return System see Fig 13
THE STONE HANDLING SYSTEM
Limestone is fed to the gasifier through a gravity feed line from a pressurised
weight hopper. A vibrator is used to control the rate of stone addition. A
ground level hopper is charged from bags of stone. A pneumatic transfer line moves
the stone from the ground level hopper to an upper hopper from which stone is
periodically dropped into the weigh hopper. The upper hopper acts an an air lock
to avoid depressurislng the weigh hopper-
-------
5A
N2 SYSTEM TO TRANSFER PUISERS
A schematic diagram Is given in figure 1ft.
MAIN BURNER DESCRIPTION
The standard oil burner of the 10 million Btu/hr boiler was replaced with an
experimental burner designed to handle the hot gasifier product.
A general arrangement of the gasified fuel burner is shown in figure 15. It will
be seen that the air required for complete combustion is introduced in 3 stages.
Roughly about 1056 of the air enters a crude injector (*/ and is pre-mixed with the
gas. Further premix may be introduced at point (2) and the remainder of the air
is fed tangentially into a swirl chamber and emerges from an annular nozzle which
is concentric with the gas nozzle. The design of this burner was purely empirical
and was based on recommended pressure drops at the nozzle. The main gas duct is
sized to give a flow velocity of about 60ft/second, the gas nozzle gives a
pressure drop in the region of 3" w.g., and tne air nozzle gives a pressure drop
of about 4-5"w.g.
A pilot light fired by propane gas is used for lighting purposes.
ANALYTICAL SAMPLING AND INSTRUMENTS
On stream analysers monitor the compositions of the key gas streams. Table I
lists these analysers and their applications.
Figure 16 gives a flow diagram of the gas analysing equipment whereas figure 17
shows the detailed sampling of the boiler flue gas.
- 246 -
-------
6A
TABLE I
CAFB Pilot Plant Gas Analysers
I
4=-
Gas Stream
Air-Flue Gas
Mix to
Gasifler Plenum
Boiler Flue Gas
Sampled at fire
tube outlet
Regenerator
Component
°2
co2
°2
co2
CO
so2
so
eL
so2
°2
co2
S00
Analyser
Servoroex OP 250
Maihak Unor 6
Servotnex OA 137
Maihak Unor 6
Maihak Unor 6
Maihak Unor 6
Wflsthoff
Hartman & Brown
Servomex OA 137
Maihak Unor 6
Maihak Unor 6
Operating Principle
Paramagnetic
Infra Red
Paramagnetic
Infra Red
Infra Red
Infra Red
Electrical conductivity
of HgOg - S02 reactor
products in solution
Infra Red
Paramagnetic
Infra Red
Infra Red
Range
0-25# by vol
0-10# by vol
0-5# by vol
0-20$ by vol
0-20# by vol
0-1000 ppm
0-1000 ppra
0-1000 ppra
0-2.5$ by vol
0-10# by vol
0-20# by vol
-------
7A
BOILER AND PRESSURIZATION SYSTEM
A handbook containing details of the boiler and pressurization unit will be kept
in the crew room. If problems occur with this equipment which is not immediately
apparent call for help.
SAFETY ALARM SYSTEMS
1. Types of Action
The installation is protected by a number of alarm circuits, in some cases the
consequence of an alarm is automatic where immediate safety is concerned, but
many others are warnings of some changing condition where there is time for
corrective action.
Action A.
This action is an automatic plant shut down and produces the following actions:-
o Fire valves close on oil feed and return lines at entrance to building.
o Oil circulation pump stops.
o Gaslfier control panel shuts down everything apart from main air blower
on the boiler, primary and secondary cooling circuits of the boiler
cooling system blowers on Jrd stage regenerator boost and pressure control
(regen off gas).
o Interior and exterior bells ring at 3P, which may be silenced by a mute
button on the auxiliary panel in the air lock passageway.
o Red light shows on the auxiliary panel and also on the gasifier control
panel warning light for the auxiliary panel.
Action B.
o Alarm light shows on gasifier control panel and rings a bell on the panel
which may be muted for that particular alarm by a switch located above
that alarm light. Automatic gasifier shut down is not possible with
action B.
Action C.
o Alarm light shows on gasifier control panel which can be linked to
a gasifier shut down by selecting the switch on the panel to "Automatic
Shut Down Mode". This alarm will ring a bell unless muted.
Action D.
o Alarm light shows on gasifier control panel - cannot ring a bell or
cause an automatic gasifier shut down.
Action E.
o Alarm light on auxiliary panel and light on control panel.
o No other action.
- 248 -
-------
8A
Action P.
o Horn type warning sounded In JF, JA and the grinding room.
Action G.
o Low pressure in the pressurisation unit causes a. unique operation - namely -
a bell on pressurisation unit, light on gasifler control panel, auxiliary
panel warning light, and automatic shut down of all equipment controlled•
from main panel but not air to burner, cooling pumps or shut down of fire
valves or oil circulation pump.
2. Alarm Sources
The installation is best considered as four main systems.
o The boiler and its cooling system.
o The gasifler.
o The experimental burner on the boiler
o General alarms.
2.1 The Boiler and its Cooling System
The water in the boiler is pressurised to about 48 psi and is pumped through
a heat exchanger. The secondary side of the heat exchanger is cooled by
an evaporative cooler on the roof of the building.
Primary Circuit Protection
o The pressurisation unit has a low pressure warning set at 40 psi.
Action G
o High water temperature in the boiler water - set at 245°F.
Action B
Secondary Circuit Protection
o Lack of cooling water flow is detected by a differential pressure switch
across feed and return lines to cooler. This switch is alarmed if the
pump is switched on and the differential pressure is less than 5 psi
approx.
Action A
o High water temperature to cooler - a mechanical reset overtemperature
alarm set in the vertical leg from the heat exchanger - operates at
200°F. The reset button is 10 ft up the vertical leg.
Action A
2.2 The Gasifler and Regenerator
The gasifler has a variety of temperature alarms and high or low pressure
alarms.
o High temperature in the gasifier bed - usually set to 950°C - set,
shown and alarmed from Guardian controller -
Action B
- 249 -
-------
9A
o High temperature in the regenerator bed - usually set to 1100°C - set,
shown and alarmed on Leeds and Northups recorder.
Action B
o Gaslfier distributor low pressure drop - set to 5" w.g. by pressure
switch - letter E. (Under control panel.)
Action D
o Regenerator distributor high pressure drop - set to 10" w.g. by pressure
switch - letter D. (Under control panel.)
Action D
o Regenerator low bed level - set to 10" w.g. by pressure switch - letter F.
(Under control panel.)
Action D
o Regenerator high bed level - set to 50" w.g. by pressure switch - letter
C.
Action D
o Pressure rise In gasifier gas space - set to 24" bjs-,pressure switch G.
Action B
2.3 Main Burner and Pilot Burner
Main Burner
The main burner flame can be scanned by 2 detectors, one at each end of the boiler
and failure of both will cause alarm C.
Pilot Burner
The pilot burner will only light up if there is gas pressure to the pilot and air
pressure to the experimental burner plenum.
If the fireye which scans the pilot does not see sufficient flame it will cause
the pilot to lock out and show as an alarm light. Failure of gas pressure or
plenum pressure will have the same result. It is not possible to check action
of fireye without attempting start up.
Action B
2.4 General Alarms
o Bitumen trailer pump failure - Action B
o t>2 supply failure - Action B
o Fire detector - a fusible link above the boiler set to melt at 155°F will
cause
Action A
This link needs to be replaced after operation and because it may not be
convenient to isolate the power at that moment a bypass electrical switch
has been fitted on the auxiliary panel as a temporary procedure until the
link can be replaced. Replacement must be done as soon as possible.
- 250 -
-------
10A
o Sump level
If the level In the sump rises to about 1/8" of floor level a light will
show on the auxiliary control panel, the main panel will not be alarmed
and no bells will ring.
Action E
o Emergency Stop Buttons
There are four emergency stop buttons located:
o Close to the sliding window in cubicle
o Main door at JA end of laboratory
o Main door at main stores end of laboratory
o Adjacent to ladder on aide of the pit
Action A
These must be reset by turning knob and allowing knob to spring back.
o Emergency Stop Button On Main Control Panel
Located in centre of gasifier control panel and shuts down all items
controlled from this panel but does not shut down fire valves, cooler pumps,
air to burner, or oil circulating pump regenerator boost or pressure
control blowers. Reset by turning ring and allowing button to return.
The fire valves and oil circulating pump can be shut down by then depressing
the emergency stop button by the sliding window.
i.e. Action A
o Call for Assistance
There are four buttons located on each wall of the pit with a further button
on the cubicle wall at the top of the pit steps. These sound horns in
3A, 3P and the grinding room.
o Fuel Shut Off Valves
In the event of an emergency shut down where there is any possibility of
fire the propane gas and kerosene must be isolated at their external valves.
The propane valve is situated at the external corner of the building
adjacent to the supply feeder from the propane line. The kerosene valve
is located by the barrel stand adjacent to the semi buried storage tank.
- 251 -
-------
11A
Summary of Pilot Plant Alarm System
Indication
Source of Alarm
Auxiliary Panel
Main Control Panel
1. Failure of water circulating Red Light
pump or lack of water in and bells
secondary cooling circuit
2. High water temperature on Red light
cooler feed line and bells
3. High water temperature in None
the boiler
4. Low pressure in pressurisa- None
tion unit.
Red light titled "Auxiliary
Panel"
Red light titled "Auxiliary
Panel"
Red light titled "Boiler
high temperature"
Red light titled "Auxiliary
panel"
n.b. Red light shown on pressurisation panel,
and its own bell rings
5. Gasifier high temperature None
6. Regenerator high temperature None
7. Gasifier low pressure across None
distributor
8. Regenerator high pressure None
across distributor
9. Regenerator low bed level None
10. Regenerator high bed level None
11. Pressure rise in gas space None
Gasifier high temperature
warning light and bell
Regenerator high temperature
warning light and bell
Gasifier low pressure distributor
warning light
Regenerator blocked distributor
warning light
Regenerator low bed level warning
light
Regenerator high bed level
warning light
Downstream pressure rise warning
light and bell
12. Experimental Burner & Pilot
Failure of: Main Flame
Pilot Flame
13. Bitumen Trailer pump failure
14. Np supply failure
15. Fire detector
16. Sump level
None Main flame failure warning light
and bell
None Pilot flame warning light & bell
None Warning light and bell
None Warning light and bell
Red light Red light titled "Auxiliary
and bells Panel"
Red light Nothing
- 252 -
-------
12A
Summary of Pilot Plant Alarm System (cont'd)
Indication
Source of Alarm
Auxiliary Panel
Main Control Panel
17. Emergency stop buttons
in building
18. Emergency stop button
Red light Red light titled "Auxiliary
and bells Panel"
None None
- 253 -
-------
13A
LOCATION OF ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS AND FUSES, (see Fig 18)
TABLE I
FUSE BOX
MAP REFERENCE
LOCATION
C
D
CONTROL ROOM
CONTROL ROOM
C/4
C/4
C/3
TO THE RIGHT OP PANEL (WHEN FACING PANEL)
BEHIND PANEL AT THE RIGHT (WHEN FACING
PANEL)
HIGH ON WALL IN NORTH EAST CORNER
ABOVE FUSE BOX C IN NORTH EAST CORNER
TO RIGHT OF GASIFIER UNIT (NORTH SIDE),
NEAR BACK OF BOILER
Fuse Labelling Convention
Typical Label - A/l/ABC
(a) First letter gives fusebox number
(b) Second letter gives fuse vertical column number (from the left)
(c) Third letter (or set of letters) gives the phase:
A refers to top horizontal row,
B the next one down and so on.
- 254 -
-------
14A
Table 2
BLOWERS:
FUNCTION
First stage main air
and flue gas blower
to Gasifier
Second stage main
air and flue gas
blower to Gasifier
Air blower to regen-
erator (first stage)
Air blower to
Regenerator (second
stage)
Main air blower to
Regenerator (third
stage )
Main air blower to
main boiler flame
Flue gas recycle
blower
Blower for back
pressure on Gasifier
to regenerator
balance valve
LOCATION
In outside shed
In outside shed
A/2
To left of
boiler, beside
boiler
A/2
To left hand
side of boiler,
beside boiler
A/2
To left hand
side of boiler,
beside boiler
A/2
To left of
boiler, near
boiler front
B/2
To right of
boiler and above
it
C/3
To right of
Gasifier unit,
nearer wall
ISOLATOR
LOCATION
To right of
panel in
Control Room
To the right
of panel (when
facing panel)
in control room
A/2
By the blower
To right of
Panel in
Control Room
To right of
panel in
control room
A/2
Above the
blower
C/2
To right of
boiler, midway
along boiler
side
C/3
By the blower
FUSE
LOCATION!
A/3/ABC
A/l/ABC
E/3/ABC
A/6/ABC
A/2/ABC
IE/S/ABC
D/l/ABC
C/l/ABC
- 255 -
-------
ISA
Table 2 (Continued)
FUNCTION
COMPRESSORS:
Uingle Compton
transfer compressor
Regenerator to
Gasif ier
Double Compton
transfer compressor
Gasifier to Regen-
ator
PUMPS:
[Fuel pump No. 1
(Left)
LOCATION
C/2
To right hand
side of toiler
C/2
To right hand
side of toiler,
beside boiler
In Control Room
to left (when
facing panel)
ISOLATOR
LOCATION
To right of
panel in
Control Room
To right of
panel in
Control room
On right side
of panel in
Control room
FUSE
LOCATION
A/7/ABC
A/U /ABC
B/l/ABC
Fuel Pump No. 2
( Centre)
Fuel pump No. 3
(Right)
Oil Circulating
Pump
Secondary oil take-
off supply pump
Compton gas
sampling pump
In Control Room
to left (when
facing panel)
In Control Room
to left (when
facing panel)
C/2
To right of
boiler, near
wall
B/2
To left of
boiler, under
boiler
At back of
Control Room
near office door
To right of
panel in
Control Room
On right side
of panel in
Control room
C/2
To right of
pump
C/3
At the top of
fuse box E ,
to the right
of Gasifier
Above the pump
A/5/ABC
1
B/2/ABC
C/6/ABC
E/l/ABC
C/2/ABC
- 256 -
-------
16A
Table 2 (Continued)
FUNCTION
i'rimary boiler
water Pump
Secondary water
cooling pump for
for boiler
Water cooling pump
Stack water washer
pump
Submersible pump for
removal of water in
Gasif ier
HEATERS:
Fuel outflow immersion
heater tank No. 1
(right hand side when
looking at it)
Fuel outflow immersion
heater tank No. 2
(Centre)
Fuel outflow immersion
heater tank No. 3
(left looking at it)
LOCATION
A/2
To left of
boiler, near
boiler front
A/2
To left of
boiler, near
boiler front
A/1*
in Gasifier pit
by ladder
C/l
Outside north
west corner
C/3
To right of
Gasifier pit in
corner
Fuel storage
outside
Fuel storage
outside
Fuel storage
outside
ISOLATOR
LOCATION
A/2
By pump on
the wall
A/2
By pump on
the wall
A/1*
In Gasifier
pit by ladder
C/2
To right of
boiler, midway
along boiler
and on wall
None
None
(Need to take
fuse out)
None
(Need to take
fuse out)
None
(need to take
fuse out)
FUSE
LOCATION
C/U/ABC
C/3/ABC
DA/C
D/2/ABC
C/12/C
C/ll/ABC
C/10/ABC
C/9/ABC
- 257 -
-------
17A
Table 2 (Continued)
•"UNCTION
)il immersion heater
For supply oil
Jutside trace heating
for Oil
[nside trace heating
for Oil
Pooling Tover
Immersion heater
TANS:
Pooling Tower Fan
ubicle purge fan
for varm air in
:ontrol room
Two speed exhaust
fan
Sxtract Fan
Just extract fan on
west wall
LOCATION
A/2
To left of
boiler, near
boiler back
On fuel
supply pipes
From oil
primary circuit
to metering
pumps
A/2
On roof
On roof
In roof
of control
room
B/3
In roof
B/3
In roof
A/1
On west wall
south west
corner
in
ISOLATOR
LOCATION
C/3
At the top of
fuse box E,
to right of
Gasifier
None
In Control
room to the
left (when
facing panel)
None
A/1
To left of
boiler, near
boiler front
In passage to
control room
In passage to
Control room
In passage to
control room
A/1
On west wall
in south west
corner
FUSE
LOCATIOf
EA/AB
C/13/C
C/13/C
C/lU/C
C/5/ABC ;
I
i
C/16/A i
C/8/ABC
C/8/ABC
C/18 /ABC
- 258 -
-------
ISA
Tab1e 2 (Continued)
FUNCTION
LIGHTS, etc:
Relay Box and
emergency horns
Spur Box and U x 13
amp Sockets in
Gasifier pit
Spur for transformer
for 12V lamp in
Gasifier pit
Large flood
light outside office
door
Outside flood light
on stack
Light at bottom of
stack
Fluorescent lights
in pit
Outside floodlight on
vest wall
LOCATION
In passage to
control room
B/3
In Gasifier pit
A/3
In Gasifier pit
Outside office
door
On chimney stack
outside
On chimney stack
outside
B/3
In Gasifier pit
On outside west
wall
ISOLATOR
LOCATION
None
None
Switch by the
transformer
A/3
Outside by
door to office
A/1
On wall in
south west
corner
C/l
On wall in
north west
corner
A/U
by ladder in
Gasifier pit
A/1
on wall in
south west
corner
FUSE
LOCATION
C/13/A
C/16/B
C/16/B
C/16/C
D/3/B
D/3/C
D/3/C
D/3/B
- 259 -
-------
19A
Table 2 (Continued)
FUNCTION
OTHERS:
Boiler Pressurisation
Unit
Panel Supply
"i-'ire Eye" for propane
warm up burner to
Gasif ier
"Fire Eye" for profane
pilot to main burner
Motorised valve for
main air supply to
Gasif ier
Motorised valve for
flue gas supply to
Gasif ier
Stone feed system
Crane
NOT IN USE
NOT IN USE
LOCATION
A/2
To left of
boiler, uear
Control room
In Control Room
A/3
To left of
Gasif ier ( pit
grid level)
B/3
At back of
boiler near
main flame
In outside shed
In outside shed
C/3
By crane upright
C/3
In north east
corner by the
Gasifier unit
None
None
ISOLATOR
LOCATION
A/2
Inside the
pressurisation
unit
To right of
Panel in
Control room
In Control room
to left (when
facing panel)
In Control room
to left (when
facing panel)
In control room
to left (when
facing panel )
In control room
to left (when
facing panel )
C/3
By crane
upright
C/3
On crane
upright
None
None
FUSE
LOCATION
C/T/ABC
A/8/A
A/8/B
A/8/B
A/8/B
A/8/B
C/17/ABC
C/1T/ABC
(A/8/C
(B/3/ABC
D A/AB
- 260 -
-------
.20A
TCVI
- 261 -
-------
J21A
.
I I
i T«O/»C
- 262 -
-------
22A
TO
rd
KYt
TO
I
1 I
) i - • l
I i '
RVI
cf
V
- 263 -
-------
CAFB PILOT PLANT FLOW PLAN
r\j
Jr
I
Drain v
Regenerator Air Blowers
N 2 for Solids
Trans Ikr
-------
Regenerator Cyclon*.
Electrical
control
cabinet.
Fuel InjeclorU'oM). •
^
Air Supply to " —
Gasifier.
.-
Chimney.
Cooler.
HI. Exchanner.
Boiler.
IS'O"
-Air Supply to
Circulating Oil Supply
from 30 * 9 lank.
SECTION.
Swinging jib
.pillar crane.
ELAN-/
GENERAL PLANT LAYOUT
32'0"
To 54-0
high slack.
FIG. 2
- 265 -
-------
of
\
Va
-------
CAFfi Pilot Pi»nt Instrumentation Flow FUn
Boiler Gas Analysis
Legend
Frequency Controller
"771 Manometer
Differential Pressure Cell
Pfe\ Pressure switch
tfl 1 Temperature Recorder
Temperature Controller
Static Pressure line
-/—• Transnitted Signal
- - - -Xarwal Control
rn
\CO,
' - '
-------
©-**-£
(§)-**-€
0-**Hi
OO
I
[&>S To^
u>wc*
<5>is fuettan
D
n
t
wra*
£><»
At
rv
3)
041.
T»P.
a)
^^"
te.
Hi6« ItVtL
re
turAiurc/e '//w
5/Sf.l
CiiWFit.ll
-------
- 269 -
-------
FUEL OIL
i
ro
-j
o
1 --t—t-
-------
ro
Q
f H W4
j f y
TANK.
STJSNJ>
8^
«-
fit
-W-
«3
II
IfAft .. f
"ff
J
i f
1
44
*il
STJ.
EJ^
-tf
'<•<««<;
Molt .
V*
ts
-------
'* V- filtfl 11-H
fv>
I
f ^i*;^-^--^^^—
^'--^s=^~^ r-k i »T!
r
T
•vto\.....
r— L
"
!
^ s
— ' r1
JE
,
0©
-^•^
,
^
•* —
t A
©
. ..,.;.-v . .- ••••.•.. .«j..,vj.\ .•„,/
n.
V V /
U
0
i
i
/•''
•'4 -
S^/mtMt& *M*
10.
U
nom*£«r Of r*jU4«
-------
Cig.PILATE OR
'J-'""' SELECTOR. VALVt Q 37
t- TC/\i L£ ^-
PL£
^^••••i
— • ' • >
i
NJ OF VALVE SPi^bLe.
- 273 -
-------
GAS OIL I C.OMPE.e.S.SE:I> A^ &UP?U\£S To
B£LQ>M faTM'MtM
4?
SWITCH (31)
FLOAT SWITCH COMTACT^
EXHAUSTING Ac- TO
VALVE Gil ^w. NiQ .Fu&LrJsiQ A\Z SITU
- II
- 274 -
-------
- 34*-
OPES AT tj> Mow
To PIT
Pump
STA«.TtiZ
PWMP
*lfl
I_.
OQ
i TO ToPuf
^-•~%|-
GAS _OIL SUPPLY T=OR
FUEL
- 275 -
-------
FLftW
»«T1M
NS4-
PLiW
MCTtfK
NI-*
^
- 276 -
-------
- 6 -
MAIN GAS BURNER
(PHASE 2)
ITU,
tTWW—C— "jpmTJmM*r&f~' Hf^^vT
c^^ris
__
OUCf
t.
PRIMARY
AIR
Win. NO. AE.^963
PRIMAljY
AIK r^
- 277 -
-------
oo
CAF3 PILOT PLANT
FLOW DIAGRAM FOR GAS ANALYSING EQUIPMENT.
To OutiM*
To Outtidt
Condtnwr
BubMtr
Rolomttcr
Stporotor Condmur
Pump Condtnstr
Bubblir
Filltr
Fllttr
Filler
BOILER
PLEt«JM
AIR LINE
REGENERATOR
I
US
00
*
I
Figure
-------
rvj
'*eh el»"j<)
1 t f
jsLUI^c^
. „/ & X
2. Alt tfcs (tWiso oioplto) (•« a>nnMiici,s
--""'•'• '/// ft)«W /R)OH,
— FLOW DIAGRAM FLua
-------
SOUTH WALL GENERAL PLANT LAYOUT
oo
o
WEST WALL
1
*S
O
fc
V
NORTH WALL
-------
; « SPeciAI. VQKr-. FHTra i^ c
CAP LOOifN ifwi
_
^TlW^^
POCSSUHF AOJU^TlNf.
LOCKING NUT
Y ȣ INSSHTlLD AT THIS POINT ONLY,
NQ ATTEMPT 5HQULL) &^ MAQE TQ PQUfT Oil
VHatfudH fm ^(J^TM.IT. "
A DIP STICK 1^ PITuq Tp TVS FILL Eft
SCRLff. OIL LHVLL SHOULO CTi
—SIDEVIEW—
BEDPLATE CI»INg HOL6S
FOB W|6' 01*
if
»,,MP flTT£0 HERE
- 281 -
-------
no
CO
rv>
AUTO COMBUSTIONS (LONDON) LTD, MO/364. WANDSWORTH ROAD, I.W.8 EMC. TECHNICAL OEPT.
©
©
d)
©
OIL SPINOLE.
SPINDLE BUTTON.
RANGED BELLOWS WITH
GASKET.
AjR DIAPHRAGM.
CHEESE-HEAPED DIAPHRAGM
SPINOLElCbNTACTING
BELLOWS)
AIR VENTS.
BOTTOM CASTING,
TOP CASTING.
THERMOSTAT CONNECTION
(AIB LEAK TYPE.}
AIR UNION,
AIR CONNECTION FROM
MAIN AIB LINE.
THROTTLE DISC (HELP 6Y
AIR UNION AND LIMITING
AIR SUPPLY TO CUT-OFF
VALVE.)
TOP CAP.
SPRING ION SPINOLE.)
SOFT OIL SEAT (IN SPINOLE)
DIAPHRAGM DISC.
TOP CAP WASHEP.
I
4^
K)
AIR FLOW
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF CUT-OFF VALVE.
11- « -6O [—M- P.A.Ml-o
. ASK
-------
C»
U)
> >
N >J
S5^
AUTO COMBUSTIONS (LONDON) LTD. 36O-62.WANDSWORTH ROAD. LONDON, S.V/.8.
A-SADDLE
B-FIBRE GASKET
C-STCEL BODY
D-LIGHT ALLOY BLOCK.
E-MAIN JET
F- SWIRL SPRING
G- BRASS SWIRL
H- SWIRL RETAINING
CIRCLIP
I-STEEL SHIM
J-SHIM LOCKING RING
K-STEEL CAP
SWIRL A MISER AZ 15 & 2O
-------
AUTO COMBUSTIONS (LONDON) LTD
OO
I
OPERATION & SETTING OF S TYPE THERMOSTAT
EXPLANATORY
COLO POSITION THE OPERATING BAR© IS FORCED Off THE BALL VALVE BY THE
OPERATING ROD Q THUS ALLOWING AIR TO ESCAPE FROM THE AH OPERATED CUT-OFF WNVE.VIA
THE PIPE LINE © SHJTTNG OFF OIL TO BURNE R
FOR THE PURPOSE OF STARTING THE ISOLATING COCK ON PIPE UNE ©SHOULD BE IN
THE OFF POSITION
HOT POSITION THE OPERATING ROD Q) CONTRACTS FROM THE OPERATING BAR © CLOSNG
THE BALL VALVE® THUS ALLOWING AIR PRESSURE TO OPERATE CUT-OFF MUVE THE ISOLATING
COCK SHOULD BE TURNED TO THE ON POSITION AFTER THE FfiE HAS BEEN 6URNNG FOB IS
MNUTES THUS MAKING PLANT SAFE SHOULD A FLAME FAILURE OCCUR
SETTING FOR USE AS FLAME FAILURE
TURN OFF ISOLATNG A« COCK SITUATED ON PIPE LINE ® AND RUN PLANT ON SMALL PLOT
FIRE FOR 2O MINUTES WITH ISOLATING Alfi COCK STILL IN THE OFF POSITION ROTATE THE
ADJUSTING SCREW @CANTI-CLOCKWISE TO OPEN VULVE © CLOCKWISE TO CLOSE) INTIL VALVE
IS OPEN THEN ROTATE THE ADJUSTING SCREW IN A CLOCKWISE DIRECTION UNTIL BALL OF VAU/E
IS JUST SEATING NOW TURN ISOLATING COCK TO THE ON POSITION-BURNER SHOULD STAY
ALIGHT IF BALL VALVE © IS CORRECTLY ADJUSTED
OPERATION
IN THE EVENT OF FLAME FAILURE-EXPANDING TUBE ® COOLS DOWN OPERATING ROD ®
PUSHES ON OPERATING BAH ©ALLOWING BALL VfcLVE ® TO OPEN RELEASING A« FROM
CUT orr \WLVE AND SHUTTING OFF OIL TO BURNER
^CITING FOR USE AS STEP-IN START
TURN OFF WAIN METERING VALVL AND RUN PLANT ON PILOT FIRE FOR ONE OR TWO
MINUTES ROTATE ADJUSTING SCREW ©CANTI-CLOCKWISE TO OPEN VALVE © CLOCKWISE
TO CLOSO UNTIL VALVE ® IS OPEN. THEN ROTATE THE ADJUSTING SCREW IN A CLOCKWISE
DIRECTION UNTIL BALL OF VALVE © li JUST SEATING-NOW TURN ON MAIN METERING VULVE
AND ADJUST TO FULL FlRE THS OPERATION CAN BE CARRIED OUT IF VALVE © IS CORRECTIY
ADJUSTED
OPERATION
PLANT STARTS ON SMALL FlRE AND BALL VALVE ® CLOSE AFTER ABOUT ONE MINUTE
THUS ALOWING AB PRESSURE TO OPERATE CUT-OFF VWVE AND TO SUPPLY OIL FEED TO
THE PftE-SET METEFSNG VALVE TO GIVE A FULL fIPE
DATA-
©OPERATING BAR ©ADJUSTING SCREW
© OfERATING ROD ® EXPANDING TUBE
©BALL VALVE ©COPPER PIPE TO CUT-OFT vsuvt
@ A« VENT (4 OFF)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR S TYPE THERMOSTAT
B.IOI8.
-------
-1-
II OPERATING PROCEDURES
There are many possible hazards in the CAPB operation, and it is
essential that every person works carefully and safely. The plant must
be operated by a three man team unless it is a warming up operation when
two men operation is permissible provided the activities are limited to
recording and controlling the temperature.
If it becomes necessary to enter the pit at any time there must be
two men available at the top of the pit to render assistance should the
man in the pit get into difficulties. Two sets of breathing masks fed
from bottles of breathing air must be available, one for use by the man
in the pit, and one for the man standing by at the top of the pit.
Whilst every precaution has been taken to reduce the dust in the
laboratory area by local dust extraction ducts it may be necessary to wear
respirators when in this area when certain actions are carried out. Please
ensure that you change the filters regularly and wash out the respirator
after use.
There are also three positive pressure respirators which are powered
by rechargeable batteries fixed to the belt which also houses the blower
and filter unit. These are available for general use, but people must
thoroughly wash the mask (as instructions) after use, and ensure that the
battery is recharged.
Spare primary and main filters are available.
Ear protection is available either as ear cups or Bilsholm wool plugs
- individuals may find that the use of this protection reduces fatigue
after long periods of time in the noisy area.
Eye protection must be worn at all times and in some cases full goggles
or face shields must be used if there is a danger of hot or dusty material
being thrown or dropping onto the face.
Asbestos gloves are available and particularly must be worn when
draining hot lime samples from the unit or any other operation involving
hot material. Light weight gloves are available for general use.
A safety helmet has been purchased for each person, and it is important
that these are always worn when in the gasifier area. If they are too bulky
for some operations there are some hard hats available for general use in
such circumstances.
In time of trouble assistance may be called by use of the alarm buttons
which sound outside the laboratory in 3A and the stone storage garage.
Fire
There are three powder fire extinguishers - one in the control cubicle
and two in the gasifier area. Be familiar with their location and method
of operation, but remember that their operation time is short and they will
only deal with small fires. Also available are two portable CO extinguishers
- 285 -
-------
-2-
- one in the crew room and one in the gasifier area near the control room
door.
There is a CCU hose reel on the wall immediately outside the main
sliding door - there are two spare full C02 cylinders on the wall adjacent.
The main reel must be immediately recharged with the two new bottles after
it has been used.
There is a fire hydrant close to Featherbed Lane near the main door.
The hose will be laid out as a safety precaution with an adjustable spray
nozzle/single jet fitting located on the end.
Fuel and SuPPly Pre-run Checks
(a) Heavy Fuel Oil
• Check tank contents.
• Check outflow temperature is about 140/1 50°F.
• Start compressor/oil pump on boiler by switching on at panel. Do not
run for more than five seconds at first few runs in order to set thick
oil moving. Continue until temperature gauge on outflow heater reaches
200/210°F and then pump may be left on.
• The boiler heater circuit is now on automatic operation and is ready
for use.
(b) Bitumen System Preparation
• Ensure that the weight of the trailer is completely taken on the four
static jacks (35) provided, to relieve the weight on the tyres (see Figure 9).
• Check
(a) that the 10 HP motor is connected to the electrical mains through
suitable control gear.
(b) lubricant level in the rotary compressor (3) on the dip stick .
(c) 35 seconds gas oil tank level for supplying the burners (after
filling always ensure that the tank cap is replaced and tightened) .
Fuel tank capacity - 50 gallons.
(d) that the hydraulic system oil reservoir (20) is topped up (Teresso
43) to line in the bottom of the filling filter and maintained at
that level. Reservoir capacity - 20 gallons.
• BEFORE CHARGING THE STORAGE TANK WITH HOT BITUMEN check that the drain
valve (3M on the sludge door beneath the tank is CLOSED.
• Ensure that the hydraulic selector valve (19) is placed in the NEUTRAL
position on electric motor start up. The hydraulic pump driving the
Barclay Kellett pump must only be operated when the bitumen has reached
270°F temperature, and must NEVER be operated whilst the bitumen is cold.
- 286 -
-------
-3-
(c) Operating the Bitumen Heat-up Burners (10)
strtthn "filtumm SyStem 'reparation" section,
?m *„ ! i° "? Br°0k electrlc mot°r. This will rotate the compressor^
AND the hydraulic motor. Make sure the selector valve (19) is in
NEUTRAL. '
2. Allow the compressed air pressure to build up according to the gauge
mounted above the compressor.
3. Adjust the pressure between 7 & 8 p.s.i. (see Figure 9). Air
will now be supplied to the burners. Burner operating pressure
5-10 p.s.i., according to fire required.
4. Fully open oil shut off valve (15) in the oil line from the fuel tank,
situated under the bitumen tank at the burner end.
5. Open oil metering valves (11) and light burners with a suitable open
flame torch.
6. Regulate valve (11) until black smoke appears at the chimney, and then
gradually close valve (11) until only a blue haze appears at the chimney.
Maximum fuel efficiency is thus obtained.
7. Set the flame failure thermostats (13) as instructed or. print 31018
under heading "Setting for use as flame failure" .
8. When the bitumen maximum temperature has been attained and the burners
extinguished automatically through the closing of the thermometer
contacts, the oil metering (11) and oil shut off (15) valves should be
Closed.
(d) Operating the Bitumen Trailer
The swivel pipe (4-1) has been provided with 1-jr" flow and return branches
for the ring main (described later) and a flow control valve between the two
branches. This f.c. valve must be fully open on start up, and only closed
during operation sufficiently to divert a flow of hot bitumen through the
ring main. It must never be closed whilst the electric motor is running.
The Barclay Kellett discharge pump (36) is controlled by the hydraulic
selector valve (19) which will be left in the DELIVERY position of ring main
pressurisation. This pump is fitted with a two-way suction pipe to allow
hot bitumen to be drawn off Just above the burner level through the open
valve (37) or to empty the tank within f" of the bottom (valve 37 now closed).
To divert the hot bitumen through the swivel pipe and thus pressurising the
ring main, the swivel pipe lever must be in the DELIVERY position.
Summary of valve positions for pressurisation of ring main -
(19) Hydraulic selector valve - DELIVERY
(37) Swivel pipe valve - DELIVERY
- 28? -
-------
(e) Operating the Bitumen Ring Main
The 1-5" ring main from the swivel pipe on the P.T.U. to inside the
North end of the boiler house is steam jacketted and lagged to maintain
the high temperature of the heated bitumen (350°F). For an emergency,
and actuated by the collapse of a fusible link located above the boiler
burner, a fire valve is fitted in the bitumen flow line and is located
outside and above the control room, (B9, Figure 8).
To charge the ring main with hot bitumen:-
(assuming that the bitumen is at the desired temperature, that the bitumen
pump on the trailer is circulating the hot bitumen, and valve B9 is closed)
• Open fully the Ij" valve Bl on the swivel pipe, and slowly operate the
5" valve B2 (MUST NEVER BE COMPLETELY CLOSED) until hot bitumen returns
to the swivel pipe. This can be observed through the bleed valve B4.
Care must be taken during this operation not to overload the trailer
bitumen pump. In the event of this pump failing the standby bitumen
pump must be brought into operation.
(f) Standby Bitumen Pump Operation
• Switch on the trace heating on the 3" manifolding.
• Rope-start the Fetter diesel engine and allow to warm up for 5 minutes.
• Open the 3" stop valve B5.
• Engage the pump drive clutch.
Should the failure of the trailer bitumen pump also mean that the
compressed air to the burners has been cut off then:
• Engage the compressor drive clutch to restore air pressure.
• Re-light the burners after, air pressure has been restored.
Both these pipe systems can be purged with gas oil through valve G8 with
the gas oil supply in operation as per Figure 12.
The trailer bitumen pump should be put back into use as soon as the
repairs/servicing are complete.
(g) Bitumen Pump Calibration
A 1" valved spur (valve B9, Figure 8) is taken from the 1-|" ring main to
supply hot bitumen through a filter and flow meter to each of two Plenty pumps.
These have vanes rotating in a variable orifice to vary the rate of flow."
To supply hot bitumen to the Plenty pumps for pump calibration:
• Switch on electrical trace heating to raise the temperature of all the
metal hardware, i.e. pipes, filter, meter and pump casings, as near as
possible to the hot bitumen temperatures.
- 288 -
-------
-5-
• Check that all the systems valves are closed, then:
• Open valves B9, B12, B15 and B16.
• Start up motor on right hand pump.
• Disconnect -|" supply line at injector and have tared 7 Ib. empty tin
handy.
• Open valve B19 and collect throughput of bitumen in the tin and time
with stop watch.
• Avoid spillage and have dry powder extinguisher available.
• Purge the system through by opening valve G12 to admit gas oil; close
valve.
• Reconnect J" line at injector.
• Close all valves.
• Repeat, opening valves B9, Bia, B25, B26 and starting left hand pump.
• Disconnect line to L.H. injector, open valve B28 and calibrate pump.
• Purge with gas oil, reconnect -*r" line and close all valves.
• Ensure that no bitumen is present in the system which will solidify when
the trace heating cools.
(h) Gas Oil Supply to Service Tank and Purge Lines
To replenish gas oil in 50 gin service tank for the trailer's burners -
• Open foot valve Gl (hand wheel near tanker catwalk) (see Figure 12).
• Open springloaded valve G2, with special key.
• Open Worcester valve (key parallel to pipe).
• Go over to pump position, close the isolator and start the pump motor
(make sure valve G4 is tightly closed).
• Mount the P.T.U. platform, towbar end of the trailer.
• Open C-5 on the end of the flexible hose and fill the service tank.
• When full, close G5 and stow away flexible safely.
To provide gas oil purge to the bitumen supply to the injectors system:
• With Gl, G2, GJ, valves open start the pump motor.
• Open G4, gas oil will now flow to the purge point, through the flexible
hose, valve G.
- 289 -
-------
-6-
(1) Kerosene
• Stored in 500 gallon tank - check that there Is enough for anticipated
usage. First check that isolating valve is turned off on pump supply
feed pipe. Then open valve at barrel. Check fire valve has not
actuated.
(j) Nitrogen
• Stored in liquid N2 tank. Check that there is sufficient for
anticipated usage. Air Products (Bracknell) must be alerted to make
daily "topping up" visits during the operational period.
• Check all valves are turned off at the bleed locations on gasifier before
opening valve on manifold.
(k) Propane
• Check valve on tank and valve outside building JF is open.
Boiler and Systems Pre-run Cheeks
• Check water level in pressurisation unit header tank is at rubber band
marker.
• Make up water supply open to tank.
• Pressurisation unit on: check Np pressure is approximately 48 p.s.i.
• On start up bell will ring. Cancel bell. Np off at cylinder.
• Air bled from boiler cooling circuit.
• Valves open from water reservoir to cooling tower located on first floor
of water tower (valve is labelled).
• Notify site services of soft water usage.
• Start boiler circulating pump.
• Start cooling tower circulating pump; hold cut-out for 15 seconds.
• Power on to cooling tower fan.
• Check automatic mixing valve working (temperature setting 160°F).
• Open cooling system purge. Check for flow in drain pit by blower house.
• Switch boiler panel on.
• Check fuel oil circulation in ring main.
• Check fuel oil circulation in boiler circuit.
• Check line up of three way valve for flow through boiler circuit heater.
• Check water pressure in boiler is approximately 48 p.s.i.
• Check sample lines are correctly installed in flue.
• Boiler door shut, held on four bolts.
• Ensure flue damper fully open; (manufacturer markings are not correct).
- 290 -
-------
-7-
• Fridge out of the way.
Gasifler Pre-run Checks
• The gasifier is assumed cold and empty of bed.
• Check belts O.K.
• First stage blower.
• Second stage blower.
• Regenerator blowers.
• Extract blower.
• Vacuum cleaner for stone feed.
• Lubrication
• Fuel circulating pump.
• Fuel metering pumps (3)•
• First stage blower.
• Second stage blower.
• Recycle blower-
• Regenerator blowers (3)•
• Main burner blower.
• Extract blower.
• Tuyere blower.
• Cubicle blower.
• Cooling tower water circulating pump.
• Boiler water circulating pump.
• Oil circulating pump under boiler.
• Bitumen circulating pumps (2).
• Bitumen metering pumps (2).
• Analysers
• Sample lines.
• Calibration.
• Pumps working.
• Filters and traps.
- 291 -
-------
-8-
Qaslfler Warm Up
• Check action of alarms.
• Alarm switch to "all alarms show".
• Bell switches to MUTE.
• Auto shutdown switches to inactive.
• Main panel power on.
• Instrument air on - 20 p.s.i.
• Instruments on and working - charts O.K.
• N2 supply to ring main - 40 p.s.i.
• Np to pressure tap bleeds - 2.5 CFH each.
• All manometers full.
• D/P cells zeroed.
• Regenerator blower on - 5 CFM flow.
• Check water level in Cbmpton supply seal - 9 FT.
• Line up to Comptons. Check operation. Set to 3 p.s.i.
• Switch off Comptons, Hne up N2 via by-pass which avoids meters, i.e.
open valve 98 and 115 - close valves 97 and 11^.
• Adjust Np to 3 P.s.i.
• Pocket agitator N2 flow to 4 CFH.
• Injector N2 flow to 0.3 CFM.
• Start pulsers and check action.
• Check solenoid action and line-up to main (M).
• Regenerator temp control on manual.
• Regenerator control switch behind panel to "off".
Pre-Heat Burner Light Up
• Close valve in line from stone feed hopper to gasifier.
• Open line to low range orifice for gasifier air.
• Ensure high range orifice inlet blanked.
• Ensure:- Propane gas line to burner open (three valves, on propane tank,
outside and inside Building 3F).
- Igniter and flame eye connected.
- Visual sight glass clean and tight.
- Purge to flame eye connected (4 CFH).
- Burner air valve open and throttle shut.
• Start both gasifier air blowers, set to 130 CFM.
- 292 -
-------
-9-
• Ensure flue gas recycle valve closed.
• Ensure burn out connection shut.
• Close plenum air valve and open burner throttles.
* 61" 3ir fl°W lndlcat°r Snd a"*""1 a*r flow indicator
• Check zero setting of both air flow gauges.
• Open plenum air valve and aet throttle to marking 1.5.
• Adjust burner air to 30 CFM.
• Check regenerator air - 5 CFM.
• Air to fuel lower side injectors - 5 CFM each.
• Check centre fuel injector retracted and N? purge to sleeve to 0.7 CFM,
and small air flow to injector.
• Upper side injectors retracted and 4 CPH air bleed injected.
• Plenum fuel injector extracted and 1 CFM air injected.
• Start boiler burner blower - 200 CFM.
• Air flow to stone feed - 90 L/Min.
• N2 flow to each fines return systems - 4 CFM.
• 4 CFH N2 bleeds to fines returns lines.
• Start regenerator pressure control blower, and set G/R AP
controller to zero.
• Check that propane pressure reads 30 p.s.i.
• Turn on electric power to start up burner control.
• Open pilot propane cock in the control room.
• Close cock slightly on air to pilot to reduce pressure.
• Activate start up burner control and go to propane throttle by
gasifler.
• Adjust propane flow to 40 CFH as soon as propane solenoid opens.
• Shut off pilot cock in the control room when white dot visible on the
controller, and adjust burner air flow to 40 CFM.
• If flame does not lock on, allow one minute purge before starting again
- from "open pilot propane cock in the control room", reset burner air
flow to 30 CFM.
• Adjust back pressure to send hot gas to regenerator by increasing G/R AP
but avoid excess temperature in R to G return pocket as measured by
temporary thermocouple.
• Control the temperature on return pocket by adjusting G/R pressure
balance.
- 293 -
-------
-10-
• Increase flow of regenerator air if necessary.
• Monitor temperatures and adjust gas and air flows to follow
temperature schedule of 15°C per hour.
• Maintain air/fuel ratio in the burner of 1 CFM/1 CFH and about 100 CFM
air flow through the plenum.
• Sequence for increasing the propane firing rate is:
Increase total air (motor valve).
Increase propane rate.
Adjust burner air.
Open plenum air throttle as required.
Pre-Heat Burner Flame Out
• Flame out: in case of flame out allow one minute purge time, identify
cause of failure and correct eg dirty fire eye then follow
"pre-heat burner light up" from the line "open pilot propane
cock in the control room". When re-lit increase propane
and air (including plenum air) to the value before flame
out and continue raising temperature.
• Observe for hot spots on the shell - correct by stopping leaks with
flbrefrax or asbestos and sairset and by water spray.
Heavy Fuel Oil Pump Calibration
• Close fuel valves to injectors.
• Open sampling valves.
• Verify trace heating on and pipes hot.
• Line oil through to the metering pumps and calibrate.
• Check operation of 80 p.s.i. overflow valve.
• Line up fuel to centre injector.
• Turn off fuel oil turn on kero and line through to kero barrel, disconnect
oil line to centre injector in the pit and clear through any P.O. into
a bucket with kero (avoid spillage and have dry powder cylinder available).
Reconnect oil line to centre injector.
Change From Propane to Kerosene
• When gasifier temperature reaches 700°C raise centre injector to 3" and
begin kero injection at very low rate with 5 CFM of air.
• Gradually replace gas flow with kero while increasing plenum air flow to
250 CFM and lowering propane to 50 CFH.
- 294 -
-------
-11-
• Line up air supply to the fines return control panel.
• Adjust air to fines return pulser to 3 p.s.i.
• Set bleed below f" Audco on each fines return pipe to 4 CFH and
open the Audco valve.
• Set Ng to each fines return injector to 4 CFM.
• Set timers on fines return control panels to 5 min. cycle and switch
on.
• Ng rate to fines return injectors and timers on the fines return panel
may need adjustment once the system settles.
Starting Stone Feed
• Record weight of limestone supply and fill ground level feed hopper.
• Close main valve and balance valve between stone hoppers.
• Start motor on transfer vacuum line.
• Open valve on vacuum line and valve on fill line and suck stone up to
overhead hopper.
• Close fill line and vacuum line valves.
• Equalise pressure between stone feed hoppers by opening balance valve.
• Open big valve between hoppers and drop lime into lower hopper.
• Check that weigh cell is working - record weight change.
• Close main and balance valves between hoppers.
• Check N2 pressure to injectors is 3 p.s.i.
• Open N2 to meters.
• Check bleeds to injectors and agitators (0.3 CFM, 4 CFH respectively).
• Set bleed Np flows to pressure tappings (2.5 CFH).
• Pressurise outer casing of gasifier to 10" WG and note flow rate.
• Check manometer fluid levels.
• Increase regenerator air flow to 15 CFM.
* Adjust pressure balance to stop G to R gas flow.
• Check regenerator to gasifier injector bleed is at 0.3 CFH.
• Check that temperature at 0 to R pocket is below 1,000°C.
• Start rapper stack cyclone.
• Do following to start stone feed:
Start 1 CFM N2 to stone hopper vessel.
- 295 -
-------
-12-
Open valve between hopper and gasifier.
Start vibrator feeding lime at 50 Ib./hr.
Check that lime is being fluid!sed.
Increase lime rate as conditions permit - keep bed temperature
above 850°C.
Check that the cyclone drains and fines return system operates
satisfactorily:
Visually from tops of cyclones.
Visually through tops of boxes.
Observe valve opening and closing sequence.
Check that valves are opening and closing fully.
As bed depth increases to near 5" you may need to increase the propane
pressure by screwing down the propane pressure reducer. Count the
number of turns and record in log book.
When bed depth reaches 5" with good kero combustion.
Close main valve in propane line to burner.
Turn off power to start up burner control.
Close air valve adjacent to burner, 2" ball valve.
Start 4 CEM air to burner purge.
Stop combustion air to start up burner.
Open plenum throttle and adjust plenum air to 170 CFM using motor valve.
Adjust kerosene rate to maintain 870°C - note rate in log.
Adjust regenerator pressure to 5-4" below gasifier.
Adjust pulsers to obtain good solids circulation.
Continue addition of limestone to specified level.
Check regenerator drain operation.
Check cyclone drain system as specified above.
Timing of the fines return cycle may need changing.
Boiler Clean Out
Line up equipment and manpower to clean out boiler:
Rake.
Breathing apparatus.
Door bolts.
Spanners.
Stop stone feed vibrator.
Close valve between stone feed and gasifier.
Stop N- feed to stone hopper.
- 296 -
-------
-13-
• Raise gaslfier temperature to 950°C.
• Perform following operations in quick sequence to interrupt
combustion and hold temperature.
Stop fuel pumps and close fuel line valves.
Switch off gasifier blowers.
Close hand valve in air line to plenum.
Stop regenerator air blower.
Turn bed transfer pulsers to 10/2.
Reduce air to all fuel injectors protruding into bed to 1 CFM.
Stop air to stone feed.
Stop Ng to fines return.
Stop cyclone drain controllers.
Stop regenerator P control blower.
• Perform following operations rapidly to prevent
too much temperature loss in gasifier bed.
Clean solids from boiler tubes.
Remake boiler door seal with f" rope + bostick and close door.
Check that main flue damper is open.
Check flue gas recycle valves are closed.
• When all is ready, and before bed temperature falls below 700°C resume
combustion by following steps in quick order:
Start air to protruding fuel injectors - 5 CFM each.
Start blowers and open air to plenum, check fluidisation.
Open fuel line valves and start pump at rate for steady 870°C
(se« log).
Start air to stone feed.
Start Np to fines return.
Start air to regenerator and adjust to 15 CFW.
Start regenerator P control blower.
Start cyclone drain controllers.
Increase pulser rates to 5/1.
• Raise gasifier temperature to 870°C.
• Resume stone addition:
N- to stone hopper.
Open feed valve.
Start vibrator.
Start Main Flame Pilot Light
(a) Main Flame Out
• Clean fire eye and start purge air in control room (60 1/min.l.
- 297 -
-------
-14-
• Set main burner air to 600 CFM.
• Line up all three propane valves to pilot burner.
• Check propane pressure at 30 p.s.l.
• Open air valve to pilot burner (set at 12 CFM, pitot 0.1).
• Turn on power to pilot burner control.
• Start control sequence.
• When propane opens check flow is 1.9 CFM.
• When lit check stability by inspecting.
• Increase burner air to 800 CFM.
• Check pilot stability.
(b) Main Flame On
• Clean fire eye and check purge at 60 1/min.
• Line up all three propane valves to pilot burner.
• Check propane pressure at JO p.s.i.
• Open air valve to pilot burner (set at 12 CFM, pitot 0.1).
• Check power on to pilot burner control.
• Start control sequence, but hold In cut out button until propane
pressure gauge needle flicks to maximum position and release button.
• Check propane flow is 1.9 CFM.
• Reset pilot burner alarm and cancel mute.
Change From Kerosene Combustion to Fuel Oil Combustion
• Activate alarm bells - except main flame.
• Check cooling system - levels, pressures, flows + set bleed, make up
valve in water tower open.
• Check that hand valve (Pit) in the flue gas recycle line is closed and
F.G.R. orifice gives zero reading.
• Line up valves from boiler flue through F.G.R. blower and filter to
blower house inlet.
• Start flue gas recycle blower.
• With motor valve fully closed, open hand valve (Pit) in F.G.R. line.
• Open flue gas recycle motor valve to give JO CFM.
• Set plenum air supply to 170 CFM.
• Adjust kero feed rate to give steady 870°C.
• Check that trace heating to oil feed lines is on and hot.
• Close kero valve and open fuel oil valve. Leave pump running and
adjust back pressure to 40 p.s.i.
« Stop stone addition:
Stop vibrator.
- 298 -
-------
-15-
Close feed valve.
Stop Ng to hopper.
• Start air bleed to flame fire eye at boiler back end.
• Check operation of boiler main flame fire eyes (2).
• Re-install and check isolating valve open for rear door fire eve and
tapping clear of lime. *
• Check rear door main flame fire eye light shows on boiler control panel.
• Switch off Middle and R.H. metering pumps and adjust L.H. pump to give
steady 870°C for an hour. Record all flows and temperatures and any
relevant comments in the log book.
Change Over From Combustion to Gasification
• Ensure that combustion is steady on L.H. pump only. Middle and R.H. off.
• Set Middle pump to 56 lb./hr.
• Set R.H. pump to 146 lb./hr. *»
• Stop L.H. pump and start Middle pump. Adjust back pressure to 40 p.s.i.
if necessary.
• Control bed temperature by intermittent operation of Middle pump -
estimated 205? on 80$ off.
• Set L.H. pump to 146 Ib./hr-
To Gasify
• Verify boiler pilot alarm and check presence of flame visually.
• Verify all other alarms and operation of main flame fire eyes (which
respond to torch light).
• Set high temperature bed alarm to 1,000°C.
• Main flame failure and auto shut-down inoperative.
• Switch Middle pump off and allow bed temperature to fall to 850°C.
• Switch Middle pump on to purge boiler with inerts (10 sec.).
• When bed temperature rises to 8?0°C do the following simultaneously and
rapidly:
Switch on L.H. and R.H. pumps.
Start stop watch.
8 sec. - reset main flame failure alarm.
If M.F.P. alarm cancelled switch off M.F.P. alarm mute and activate
auto shut down.
Proceed to "on gasification".
If M.F.F. alarm did not cancel do as follows:
9 sec. - reset M.F.F. alarm:
If M.F.F. alarm cancelled, do as at 8 sec.
- 299 -
-------
-16-
If M.F.F. alarm not cancelled do as follows:
10 sec. - reset M.F.F. alarm:
If M.F.F. alarm cancelled do as at 8 sec.
If M.F.F. alarm not cancelled do as follows:
11 sec. - reset M.F.F. alarm:
If M.F.F. alarm cancelled do as at 8 sec.
If M.F.F. alarm not cancelled:
Switch off L.H. and R.H. pumps.
Reset L.H. pump to steady combustion rate (approximately 30 lbs./hr.).
Switch off Middle pump before gasifier temperature reaches 1,000°C
but not less than 10 sees, after L.H. and R.H. pumps off.
Switch on L.H. pump.
Line out on combustion at 870°C.
Attempt to find out what went wrong, rectify if necessary and repeat
from "change over from combustion to gasification".
On Gasification
• Switch off Middle pump.
• Reset high temperature bed alarm to 950°C.
• Adjust metering pumps' pressure to 4-0 p.s.i. (if necessary).
• Check for leaks on gasifier and seal if necessary with fibrefrax and
sairset.
• Resume stone addition:
Np to hopper.
Open valve between hopper and gasifier.
Start vibrator.
• Adjust flue gas recycle and air rates to obtain specified temperature
and gas velocity.
• Adjust stone circulation rate to obtain desired regenerator temperature.
• Put regenerator temperature control on automatic:
At controller.
Behind panel switch to "on".
• Check cooling system operation; set cooler control to 160°F.
• Bring conditions to specified level.
Trouble-Shooting on Steady State Conditions
• Do not change any control settings unless one or more of the listed
deviations occur.
- 300 -
-------
-17-
• Ensure:- preventive maintenance procedures are carried out.
Watch • 02 level in the flue gas.
• Gasifier Bed Temperature.
• Regenerator bed temperature.
• Gasifier top space pressure.
• Fuel delivery pressures.
• Fines return system.
• Regenerator COg and S0_.
• Compton pressures.
• Boiler flue gas exit temperature.
• Gasifier bed depth.
• Enter in the log book, details of any incidents which occur, together
with the time of occurrence and the remedial actions which were taken.
• Possible Incidents due to Malfunction
1. Bed Temperature Starts to Rise Rapidly
(a) Check 02 level in flue gas. If this is rising then the fuel is not
getting through to the gasifier.
(b) If Og level is normal check the stone feed and see that this is
functioning properly. If not try adjusting the feed rate, and other
remedial actions such as refilling the hopper.
(c) If the Op is rising then check the fuel pump delivery pressures. If
these are high (80) then fuel may be by-passing the injectors and blowing
out into the dump can. In this case check the dump pipe outlet for
oil flow and adjust the fuel pressure control valve to bring the
pressures both to 40 p.s.i.g.
(d) If opening the fuel valve will not lower the pressure then either the
fuel injector is blocked or else there may be emulsion in the fuel.
Try switching the fuel to the alternate injectors. If this does not
ease the trouble then switch back to the previous fuel tank and call for
help. If the fuel shortage persists then eventually there will be a
flame-out and the unit will shut down automatically. Initiate
emergency shut down procedure.
(e) If the fuel pressure is low with rising bed temperature then the fuel
tank may be empty. Check this and swap tanks if necessary.
2. Regenerator Temperature Rises Rapidly
The regenerator temperature actuates an alarm at 1,100°C and a nitrogen
quench if valve is open. If it suddenly rises the chances are that the bed
transfer system is inoperative.
- 301 -
-------
-18-
(a) First check the Compton pressures, these should be about 3 p.s.i.g.
If they are low then the Comptons will have stopped; switch to the
alternative nitrogen supply.
(b) If on automatic control, check the rate at which the gasifier to
regenerator pulse is working. If this is very rapid then it will
be inoperative. Switch to manual and adjust to a reasonable rate,
i.e. greater than 5/1, which brings the temperature back into line.
(c) If the temperature is excessive and must be reduced quickly, use the
regenerator pressure control valve to swing the pressure differential
between the gasifier and regenerator. This will rapidly exchange bed
material and will temporarily bring the regenerator temperature down.
(d) If manual control does not work, and the gas supply is satisfactory
then there may be a blockage in the gas injectors. Go down into the
pit, check and rod out injectors, bleeds and transfer lines, if
necessary.
3. Fines Return Np Pressure Rising
This indicates a blocked fines return pipe. Switch off the
corresponding control panel and rod out the pipe.
4. Cyclones Not Draining Properly
This is indicated by cyclone drain temperature dropping steadily, and
can be verified by a visual check through sight glasses in the top of the
cyclone and on the box. Check valve operation; if not satisfactory then
rectify faulty valve. If blocked, rod out. If the blockage appears to be
in the pulser then turn off the control panel, and turn off N2 to injector
and shut off the -5-" Audco valve. Rod through the valve from below the puffer.
As a last resort dismantle the puffer, clean out and replace.
5. Regenerator CO- Increases and SOU Decreases
This indicates that too much carbon is accumulating on the bed material.
The remedy is to increase the air and flue gas supply to the gasifier to
maintain temperature. Do not change the fuel rate because this is related to
the stone feed rate.
6. Gas Space Pressure Increases
Prepare for planned shut down and decoke when the gas space pressure
approaches 20" WG.
7. Automatic Shut Down
Initiate emergency shut down on gasification procedure.
8. Boiler Flue Gas Temperature Rises
If this temperature rises rapidly then the brickwork arch which seals
- 302 -
-------
-19-
against the boiler door will have developed a leak. Call for help when
the temperature exceeds 500°F.
9- Back Up Pump on the Pressurisation System Runs Continuously
Call for help.
10- Main Flame Pilot Light Goes Out
^ This will actuate the alarm bell. Try to relight the pilot using
start main flame pilot light (b)' procedure, and if unsuccessful call for
help.
11- Failure of Bitumen Trailer Pump
An alarm bell will actuate in control room. The procedure for bringing
a standby bitumen pump into operation is given in this manual. Do this
immediately and arrange for trailer pump repair.
12. Nitrogen Supply Failure
An alarm bell will actuate in control room. The transfer system/fines
return system/nitrogen bleeds will fail. The Comptons will automatically
switch off. The regenerator temperature initially will rise rapidly and you
may need to activate the N2 quench, but eventually the regenerator temperature
will fall when carbon has been removed and stone sulphated.
Transfer nitrogen bleeds to cylinder supply. Identify cause of fault
and rectify immediately if possible. If it is not possible to remedy fault
within five minutes initiate planned shut down without sulphation. Note the
N2 plenum purge will need to be coupled to N2 cylinder supply.
13. Flue Gas Recycle Filter Problems
The pressure drop through the bag filter will be recorded on an hourly
basis (see data sheet 4). Monitor this pressure difference and take action if:-
(a) pressure drop is zero.
(b) pressure drop is greater than 6" HgO.
Condition (a) will occur if one or more of the bags come loose or are
punctured. Isolate system and replace with spare bags. If in doubt call for help.
Condition (b) will occur if the bags are blocking. Try clearing them
using the No back flow rapper (several quick 4 second blips) located on the
right hand side of the filter. Open drain valve and remove material deposited.
Any other problems with this system which cannot be dealt with immediately
call for help.
- 303 -
-------
-20-
14. Liquid Nitrogen System Failures
This system is fully automatic, and provided that it is used properly,
and is filled in good time, should require no attention from CAFB shift
personnel.
However, problems have occurred on almost every run, and the following
notes should help to avoid calling out Air Products unnecessarily, or may
keep us going until they arrive:
(a) Loading
1. See That Air Products Do Arrive As Scheduled
Sometimes they miss us out as we are a small outlet compared
with Harwell. Call Air Products on if no
delivery by noon. Usually a replacement delivery can be
arranged within three hours of our call.
2. See That Air Products Do Deliver When They Arrive
Drivers have been known to go away if either their electrical
offloading pump or our electric supply is faulty. If our
supply is off check isolating switch on wall behind Hg tank
is on, and that fuses (in workshop - fuse box labelled) are
O.K. Spare fuses should be alongside fuse box.
N.B. No fuses In outside box - it is only an isolator.
3. See That Air Products Load Properly
Proper procedure is to load via valve Vj or V2. If loading
via YI the full trycock, V^ must be vented to check no
overfill. Always check this trycock after a delivery. Run
until gas is vented. Proper procedure is to load at a
moderate rate. Loading too fast may ice up lines and freeze
valve spindles, resulting in valves which do not seat
properly or may seize shut.
(b) Misuse of System
1. See That Other Site Users Have Not Made Mistakes
This is most likely during normal working hours. Errors
which have been made include:-
• Loading Dewars via V™ and V, - bad practice as it can
freeze loading valves and Air Products have to waste
time unfreezing them - not a way to get their
co-operation on deliveries.
• Loading Dewars via V^g, which is correct, but closing
VIQ and V afterwards - this loses tank pressure fasti
- 304 _
-------
-21-
2. See That We Do Not Make Mistakes
If we overload the demand circuit then the vapouriser
(vertical finned tubes) will fail to warm the nitrogen
sufficiently and TCV1 will close, reducing supply, and
our pressure will fall. Keep a watch on the finned
tubes and clean off ice and/or reduce N_ demand. (Note
that Pilot Plant is on same circuit - are they using a
lot/have they got a leak?)
3. See That We Do Mot Damage Anything
When we are running, the N2 system is stretched to its
limit and many lines are heavily iced up. If you wish
to remove ice to get at valves, or just to check what you
are doing be careful what you use to knock off ice, and
where you hit - there are six small copper lines to a set
of relief valves and to the liquid level/pressure gauges
behind the display panel, and these are, at best, silver
soldered; some may even be soft soldered. They are all
rather fragile to impact at -186°C, and a rupture of one
of these Joints could shut us down.
(c) Actions If Pressure At CAFB Is Low
1. Look for large leaks in CAFB and Pilot Plant.
2. Check liquid N2 pressure.
If Normal 150 p.s.i. - check vapouriser is not frozen over.
If it is, remove ice, reduce CAFB demand on tank (check
demand by rest of site by throttling valve and listening to
change in noise. If this demand is high, something is
probably faulty, since rest of site demand is usually
one-seventh of CAFB on run). If no obvious over-demand
TCV1 may be faulty. Check V]_g is wide open. If it is
and still low pressure at CAFB PCV2 may be faulty. CALL
AIR PRODUCTS.
If Low - check V2, V^ shut tight. V,, V12, V,^, V,g wide
open. If still low pressure, PCV1 may be failed shut.
Try warming it - if no improvement CALL AIR PRODUCTS and
prepare for imminent gasifier shut down for many hours, i.e.
bed sulphation, burn out and standby on combustion.
(d) Actions If Pressure At Tank Is High (Over 180 p.s.i.)
Check V,, is shut tight. If it is then PCV1 is failed in open
position. Try warming it - if no response control tank pressure
by throttling on V, - this will be tricky to do and will require
a constant watch orf tank pressure, but can be kept up indefinitely.
CALL AIR PRODUCTS FOR ADVICE. If they insist on removal/servicing
of PCV1 this need not shut us down provided tank pressure is raised
to maximum recommended by Air Products before block valves V and
V are shut by Air Products to remove PCV1, but we must ther? reduce
- 305 -
-------
-22-
demand to a minimum as tank pressure will fall during servicing.
(e) Actions If Tank Pressure Is Very High (Over 250 p.s.i.)
This is approaching the bursting disc pressure limit, so reduce
tank pressure to below 200 p.s.i. immediately using V4. If the
high pressure was reached suddenly then the liquid nitrogen will
still be cool, and pressure will reduce quickly with little loss
of tank contents. However, if the liquid nitrogen has warmed
up to equilibrium with 250+ p.s.i. then a significant loss of tank
contents will be necessary to reach a stable pressure below
200 p.s.i. IF THE TANK CONTENTS ARE ALREADY LOW CALL AIR PRODUCTS
FOR AN EARLY DELIVERY. If not possible, watch situation closely
and be prepared to shut down if nitrogen runs out. Look for faults
as in (d) above.
(f) Actions If Disc Bursts Or Relief Valve (RV6) Lifts
If bursting disc blows, shut down gasifier, sulphate, burn out and
go to standby on full combustion. CALL AIR PRODUCTS. If Air
Products response is slow, try to rectify tank system. A spare
bursting disc is kept in a glass fronted case on the wall behind
the tank. Close V, and V.,- while replacing disc.
If RV6 lifted, try to reseat after tank is below 200 p.s.i. RV6
may have frozen open, so warm up if necessary. Find fault as in
(d) above and rectify.
- 306 -
-------
-23-
PLANNED SHUT DOWN ON GASIFICATION
• Possible reasons:
(a) Prior to deooke.
(b) Gasifier maintenance, e.g. removal of lime from plenum.
(c) Boiler Back End Clean Out.
Two alternatives:
(a) with sulphation.
(b) without sulphation.
• If the reason for the shut down necessitates an activity in which the
bed is exposed to the open air, then It is necessary to sulphate the
bed to avoid formation of CO gas in the pit.
(a) With Sulphation
• Reduce gasifler temperature to below 850"C by increasing flue gas recycle
rate.
• Switch regenerator temperature control to manual - switch behind panel
to 'off1.
• Increase pulse rate to reduce regenerator temperature below 1,000°C.
• CHECK auto valve on cooler Is functioning and pressure in pressurisation
unit Is O.K. (If auto valve not working be prepared for loss of
pressure in pressurisation unit, e.g. arrange for back-up (hand) pump.)
• Shut vent from boiler sample cyclone with plug.
• Disconnect sample lines to boiler SOg analyser, and clip off so that
other analysers can monitor boiler flue without sucking.air.
• Shut off auxiliary air bleeas to gasifler -
(a) Air bleed to lid if present.
(b) Air to preheat burner purge.
(c) Switch fuel injectors from air to Ng, set at 2 Cm (open Ng FIRST).
(d) Air to stone feed.
• Close stone feed valve.
- 307 -
-------
-24-
• Close N2 to stone feed hopper.
• Switch off stone feed vibrator.
• Close needle valve on air meter manometer to prevent blowing.
• Open flue gas orifice by-pass valve.
• Switch automatic shut down to 'inoperative' and mute main flame and
pilot flame alarms.
Supervisor
Switch off fuel pumps.
Close gasifier air motor valve.
Open FOR motor valve to give 140 to 280 CFM as measured on gasifier
air flow Anubar.
Man A
As soon as M.P.F. light on, close throttleson main and premix burner
air lines.
Man B
As soon as M.F.F. light on, close fuel valves in control room, go to
blower house and blocX off open air inlet.
Control bed temperature to 900-950"C by regulating flow of air to main
burner (use first primary air throttle). Oxygen concentration in
flue gas recycle of ^vlO vol.$ is required (measured on plenum air Og
meter).
Sulphatlon is complete (-^. 20 minutes duration) when oxygen levels
increase and bed temperatures falls.
When complete -
(a) Shut off gasifier blowers.
(b) Close plenum valve.
(c) Close FOR valve in pit.
(d) Reduce regenerator air flow to 3 CFM.
(e) Close first primary air throttle to main burner.
(f) Switch off fines return system.
(g) N2 to fines injectors to 1 CFM each.
(h) Open needle valve on air meter manometer.
- 308 -
-------
-25-
(b) Without Sulphation
• Increase gasifier temperature to 930°C by shutting off flue gas recycle
and/or reducing fuel supply to gasifier.
• Close FGR in pit.
• Shut vent from boiler sample line with plug.
• Disconnect sample lines to boiler S02 analyser, and clip off so that
other analysers can monitor boiler flue without sucking air.
• Shut off auxiliary air bleeds to gasifier -
(a) Air bleed to lid if present.
(b) Air to preheat burner purge.
(c) Switch fuel injectors from air to Ng set at 2 CFM (OPEN Np FIRST).
(d) Air to stone feed.
• Close stone feed valve.
• Close Ng to stone feed hopper.
• Switch off stone feed vibrator.
• Mute main flame failure alarm.
• Switch off fuel pumps.
• Check blowers and pumps are off.
• Close regenerator blower outlet valve.
• Close plenum throttle.
• Close plenum valve tight.
• Open plenum throttle.
• Turn on plenum H^ purge at 1 CFM.
• Switch off regenerator blower and fines return system.
• N to fines returns to 1 CFM each.
• Close fuel valves.
Emergency Shut Down on gasification
• When alarms ring and main flame failure shows:
Check blowers and pumps are off.
Close regenerator blower outlet valve and burner purge.
Close plenum throttle.
Close plenum valve tight.
Open plenum throttle.
Check plenum N2 purge at 1 CFM.
Close air to stone feed.
Close stone feed valve.
Close N2 to stone feed hopper.
- 309 -
-------
-26-
Swltch off vibrator.
Change fuel injector purges to N2 and set at 2 CFM.
Close fuel valves.
Close off any air supply, e.g. to lid.
Switch off regenerator blower and fines return systems.
ti to fines return to 1 CFM each.
Close FOR valve in pit.
The gasifier is now safe to leave slumped for at least one hour to
investigate cause for shut down and rectify, or call for help. If the shut
down is likely to last for more than 15 minutes purge through fuel oil lines
with kerosene, or if on bitumen purge through on gas oil (see "Gas Oil Supply
to Service Tank and Purge Lines").
Probable Causes for Shut Down
• Failure of 12V stabilised power supply to main board.
• Interruption of mains supply/ fire eyes dirty/not connected/eye ports
blocked.
• Pressurisation unit lost pressure - pump failure/leak/non-ret valves.
• Failure of fuel supply - tank empty/filters blocked/fire valves dropped/
water-oil emulsion.
Carbon Burn Out
• The procedure for carbon burn out is the same whether the shut down was
planned (with or without sulphation) or emergency.
• Put plug on air inlet to gasifier blower.
• Put cap on outlet from sample cyclone.
• Close throttle on main and premix burner air lines.
• Restart gasifier blowers.
• Open FOR in pit.
• Close flue gas recycle by-pass valve.
• Open FOR motor valve.
• Open valves in gas line to gasifier lid and start small flow initially,
building to a flow of 100 CFM flue gas, holding thermocouple in duct to
below 1,000'C.
• Check main air blowers running, and adjust flow by opening premix throttle
to give 02 content of -
-------
-27-
• Burn out is complete when C02 in boiler flue gas begins falling.
• During burn out monitor bed temperature (T2).
• If temperature falls below 700'C and bed is sulphated, change to
kerosene combustion:- ^'«>uSe to
- Close off alr/FGR to lid, and air bleed via burner premix throttle.
Close PGR motor valve.
Set one fuel pump to deliver 56 lbs./hr.
Check trace heating is on and hot.
Remove plug from air Inlet to gasifier blowers.
Open plenum valve and adjust to 170 CFM by opening air motor valve.
Start fuel pump and open fuel valves to Injectors.
Continue combustion till bed temperature rises to 850°C.
Maintain watch on downstream thermocouple^ while bed is being heated
up.
At 850CC - shut off fuel pump and close fuel valve.
Shut off plenum valve and close air motor valve.
Open FGR motor valve.
Continue decoke from "Carbon Burn Out Procedure".
• If temperature falls to 700°C, and bed is sulphided:-
Close off air/PGR to lidf and air bleed via burner premix throttle.
Close PGR motor valve.
Remove plug from air inlet to gasifier blowers.
Open plenum valve.
Adjust air flow to 170 CFM using air motor valve.
Continue until temperature rises to 850°C.
Maintain a watch on downstream thermocouples.
At 850°C close plenum valve.
Open PGR motor valve.
Continue decoke from "Carbon Burn Out Procedure".
• If re-heat of sulphided bed fails to reach 850°C, and temperature starts
to fall because bed carbon is depleted and sulphide oxidised to^sulphate,
resume under "Temperature fall during decoke with sulphated bed .
Completion of Carbon Bum Out
• When C02 level in flue gas starts to fall, indicating completion of
burn out: -
Close air plus FGR to lid.
- 311 -
-------
-28-
Close FGR valve in pit.
Close FGR motor valve.
Remove plug from air inlet to gasifier blower.
Remove plug from sample cyclone.
Increase N? to fines return to 4 CFM each.
Restart After Shut Down
(a) From Sulphated Bed after Carbon Burn Out
• After "Completion of Carbon Burn Out" procedure:-
• Reconnect S0? analyser to sample system, zero and check calibration.
• Resume kerosene combustion using as a check list the procedure under
"Boiler Clean Out" after the boiler door has been closed.
• Go to procedure for "Change from Kerosene Combustion to Fuel Oil
Combustion", but omit final step of holding 870°C for one hour.
• Go to procedures for "Change Over from Combustion to Gasification" and
"On Gasification".
• Resume test programme,
(b) From Sulphided Bed After Carbon Bum Out,
• After "Completion of Carbon Burn Out" procedure:-
• Reconnect SO analyser to sample system, zero and check calibration.
• Check main burner pilot or re-establish, see "Start main flame pilot light".
• Activate alarm bells except main flame.
• Check cooling system levels/pressures/flows/bleed.
• Check FGR blower on.
• Check FGR valve in pit is closed, and close FGR motor valve.
• Check trace heating is on and hot.
• Verify operation of main flame detectors.
• Check boiler pilot alarm and verify visually.
• Verify all other alarms except main flame.
• Set high temperature alarm on gasifier to 1,000°C.
• Main flame alarm muted and auto shut down inoperative.
• Set fuel pumps to deliver 292 Ibs./hr. total. Arrange flows such that
equal volumes flow down each injector with all pumps on.
• Open plenum valve.
• Adjust air to 170 CFM.
• Quickly open FGR valve to 30 CFM.
• Start air to regenerator and adjust to 15 CFM.
- 312 -
-------
-29-
With sulphided bed allow gasifier temperature to rise to 850°C.
At 850°C simultaneously switch on two pumps totalling 2Q2 Ibs Ar and
start stop watch.
• At 8 sec. reset main flame failure alarm (MPFA).
• If MFFA cancels switch off mute and arm auto shut down.
• Proceed to "On Gasification".
• At 9 sec. reset MFFA and repeat as above.
• At 10 sec. reset MFFA and repeat as above.
• At 11 sec. reset MFFA and repeat as above.
• If MFFA has not cancelled at 11 sec. switch off pumps immediately.
• At 21 sec. switch off main air blowers and proceed as for "Restart After
Shut Down".
• Investigate causes for failure to ignite, rectify and repeat.
(c) From Sulphided Bed Without Carbon Burn Out
• If emergency shut down has been effected find the cause of shut down
and rectify.
• Check fuel oil fire valves are open, and oil circulating pump is operating.
• Check red light is out on auxiliary panel.
• Check main burner pilot or re-establish, see "Start Main Flame Pilot Light"
• Activate alarm bells except main flame.
• Check cooling system levels/pressures/flows/bleed.
• Check FGR blower on.
• Set Np to fines return 4 CFM each.
• Check FGR valve in pit is closed, and close FGR motor valve.
• Check trace heating is on and hot.
• Verify operation of main flame detectors.
• Check boiler pilot alarm and verify visually.
• Verify all other alarms except main flame.
• Set high temperature alarm on gasifier to 1,000°C.
• Main flame alarm muted and auto shut down inoperative.
• Set L.H. and R.H. fuel pumps to deliver 292 Ibs./hr. total. Arrange
flows such that equal volumes flow down each injector.
• Open plenum valve.
• Adjust air to 1?0 CFM.
• Quickly open FGR valve to 30 CFM.
• Start air to regenerator and adjust to 15 CFM.
• Allow gasifier temperature to rise to 850°C.
- 313 -
-------
-30-
• At 850"C simultaneously switch on two pumps totalling 292 Ibs./hr. and
start stop watch.
• At 8 sec. reset main flame failure alarm (MFFA).
• If MFFA cancels switch off mute and arm auto shut down.
• Proceed to "On Gasification".
• At 9 sec. reset MFFA and repeat as above.
• At 10 sec. reset MFFA and repeat as above.
• At 11 sec. reset MFFA and repeat as above.
« If MFFA has not cancelled at 11 sec. switch off two larger pumps
immediately.
• At 21 sec. switch off main air blowers and proceed as for "Restart After
Shut Down".
• Investigate causes for failure to ignite, rectify and repeat.
Changeover From Heavy Fuel Oil to Bitumen
It is assumed that one Right Hand lower side and one Left Hand lower
side injector are in operation on heavy fuel oil supplied equally by two
metering pumps (refer to Figure 8). The change to bitumen should be carried
out on one injector at a time. The bitumen system is assumed flushed with
gas oil.
• Note and record fuel oil delivery values on both pumps.
• Set main burner air to give 5$ 0- in flue gas.
• Raise gasifier high temperature alarm to 1,000°C.
• Ensure gasifier temperature not lower than 890°C.
• Select to change over to R.H, injector first (for instance).
• Reduce heavy fuel supply to this injector by 35 Ibs./hr. (approximately
10$ total fuel) - reduce on one pump only (hereafter called pump A).
• Set R.H. bitumen (Plenty) pump to meter 70 Ibs./hr. bitumen.
• Line up valves to inject bitumen to R.H. injector down to final bitumen
to injector valve (Bj6).
• Open bitumen valve (B36) and quickly switch on R.H. bitumen pump.
• Monitor gasifier temperature and flue gas Op levels - these will decrease
and level out at new value.
• Hold for 5 minutes to ensure bitumen is through to gasifier (M.3. an
increase in gasifier temperature after the decrease means a bitumen
blockage).
• Back off heavy fuel oil on pump A by 70 Ibs./hr.
• Raise bitumen flow to 140 Ibs./hr. and then switch off pump A and close
valves at injector and in control room.
-------
-31-
• Increase R.H. bitumen pump delivery to level originally metered by
pump A.
• Repeat same procedure for second injector-
• Monitor flue gas oxygen and adjust if necessary to give stable flame.
• Purge fuel oil pumps and lines with kerosene. Have dry powder fire
extinguisher to hand during purge procedure, and avoid spillages in pit.
Changeover From Bitumen to Heavy Fuel Oil
The procedure is similar to the changeover from heavy fuel oil to
bitumen except that after the bitumen fuel valves have been closed the
bitumen line must be flushed with gas oil (see "Gas Oil Supply to Service
Tank and Purge Lines"). Have fire extinguisher to hand during purge
procedure and avoid spillages in pit.
Sampling of Hot Bed Material
• Wearing of asbestos gloves is recommended for this operation.
• Ensure that both bleeds are at 2.5 CFH.
• Open sample pot exit valve and drain leg valve, and drain bed material
into 28 Ib. keg until red hot bed material appears - rod out drain leg
if necessary.
• Close exit valve and fill sample pot with hot bed material ( ^, 4 Ibs.)
observe through sight glass.
• Leave Ng purge and leave sample to cool (^- 30 mins.).
Roddlng Out
• Wearing of asbestos gloves and a face-mask is necessary, and in some
instances, for example redding from the top of the cyclones, full
breathing apparatus should be used.
• Turn on Np to rodding lance and set at high flow rate. N..B. too high
a M flow may trip the safety switch on the Compton compressors.
• Remove plug, insert and position Ng lance in rodding port before opening
valve.
• After rodding withdraw lance beyond valve, but not fully out and close
valve.
• Care should be taken when rodding fuel injectors, fines return pipes or
manometer tappings where a significant positive gas pressure exists on
the other side of the blockage. A cloth wrapped (like a scarf) round
the neck inside the overalls will save neck burns. In the case of
regenerator tappings remember the gas stream will contain 8-10 vol.fr S00.
- 315 -
-------
-32-
Injeetion of Toxic Gases
This will only be carried out by a qualified person fully familiar
with toxiclty of handled materials, and with safe handling and test
procedures. For Run 10, Z. Kowszun is designated as sole person qualifying.
Injection shall take place only when another shift supervisor is
present and observing the following precautions.
(a) Both sliding doors to gasifier area open.
(b) Access of personnel not involved In test to gasifier area must
be prevented by posting sentries.
(c) Full breathing apparatus should be worn by tester and back-up
man.
(d) All equipment should be leak tested before use.
(e) On the spot analysis for toxic materials of atmosphere in main
pilot plant area and control room must be carried out throughout
test period with a Drager.
(f) Samples and any necessary readings outside the control room will
be taken by the nominated person only.
- 316 -
-------
-33-
Preventive Maintenance and Sampling During Run
The following action items should be carried out on a regular basis
throughout the run as indicated below.
• Blow out pressure tapping lines and zero manometers (every shift).
• Zero and calibrate analytical instruments/change filters (day shift only).
• Rod out flue gas sample line - change filter on flue sample line and
regenerator sample line, and empty knock-out vessel (every shift).
• Clean fire eyes on boiler (every shift)
Check if red light is on at boiler control panel, showing rear
door fire eye is seeing a flame. If light is on, remove and
clean front fire eye first, then clean rear door fire eye. If
light is off, clean rear door fire eye first, then front fire eye.
Always check red light is on at boiler panel after cleaning rear
door fire eye.
Failure to follow this sequence for cleaning fire eyes may result in
an automatic shut down.
• Oil dust extractor fan bearings located in roof and grease boiler water
cooling pump, and boiler water circulating pump (2 grease points each)
(every shift).
• Check blowers for belt wear (a) blower house (2) (hourly - see
(b) regenerator (J) data sheet 4)
(c) cooling fan on roof
• FOR filter maintenance.
At least once a shift or more often if pressure drop on FOR filter
gauge approaches 6" H20, clean bags by activating N2 back flow
rapper (several quick 4 seconds blips). The valve is located on the
right hand side of the filter unit. Open drain valve at bottom of
filter and remove deposited material.
. Every si* hours take gasifier and regenerator bed samples and gasifier
cyclone (L.H.)•
• At 12 00 and 24.00 take gasifier, regenerator, regenerator cyclone,
boiler back and boiler flue, gasifier cyclones (2) samples.
• On bitumen trailer unit:-
Comoressor
(day shift only).
. Maintain compressor lube oil level no higher than top level of the
dipstick (day shift only).
. Check that all pipe joints are tight and do not leak air (every shift),
Lubricants
Hydraulic system - Teresso 4?
Rotary vane compressors - Estor HD 30
Fetter engine on standby pump - Esso 20W/50
- 317 -
-------
APPENDIX E
ANALYSIS OF LIMESTONE AND FUELS : RUN 10
Limestone
The USA (ex Grove Limestone Company, Stephens City,
Virgina) limestone BCR 1359 was used throughout Run 10.
Inspections of samples taken during the run are given in
Table El.
Heavy Fuel Oil
The Heavy Fuel Oil used throughout Run 10 was a single
batch produced from Venezuelan crudes at Amuay refinery.
Inspections of samples taken during Run 10 are given in
Table E2.
Residuum
The residuum used was produced at Fawley refinery from
TJ 102 Medium crude. It is the vacuum pipestill bottoms
produced when normal atmospheric pipestill bottoms are
further distilled under vacuum, Table E3.
Illinois No.6 Coal
The very limited test work at the end of Run 10 on coal
injection and gasification was conducted entirely on Illinois
No.6 coal. Specific quality checks were not conducted at
the time on each size distribution used. The typical
inspection of the material from which the samples were taken
is given in Table E4.
- 318 -
-------
APPENDIX E
TABLE 1
ANALYSIS OF LIMESTONE, BCR 1359 USED FOR RUN
Sample Number
Time (D.H.)
CaO wt %
MgO wt %
i Si02 wt %
OO
-> A12OQ wt %
1 C02 wt %
Fe203 ppm
Na20 ppm
S wt %
V ppm
Ni ppm
50750
2.0600
58.2
0.53
0.83
0.26
40.8
529
77
<0.04
35
34
50828
6. 1200
57.8
0.50
0.86
0.24
38.5
410
101
<0.04
68
39
50887
13. 1200
59.9
0.48
1.08
0.24
39.7
485
99
<0.04
34
23
50988
18. 1200
58.7
0.51
1.30
0.34
39.8
862
92
0.29
76
47
10
51018
19. 1200
58.7
0.51
0.86
0.27
38.5
615
92
<0.04
134
38
Mean
58.
0.
0.
0.
39.
580
92
-
69
36
7
51
99
27
5
-------
oo
rv>
o
Sample Number
Time (D.H. )
C wt %
H wt %
S wt %
V ppm
Na ppm
Fe ppm
Ni ppm
SG at 60'F
Conradson Carbon
Aaphaltenes
Water %
50762
2.0600
85.45
10.90
2.18
-
-
-
-
0.956?
8.47
6.27
Nil
ANALYSIS OF
50789
6.0600
85.95
10.87
2.55
-
-
-
-
0.9595
10.31
6.23
Trace
APPENDIX E
TABLE 2
FUEL OIL USED FOR RUN 10
50852
12.2000
85.38
10.92
2.58
-
-
-
-
0.9583
.9.89
6.76
Nil
50898
13.0000
85.66
10.77
2.59
-
-
-
-
0.9591
10.83
6.28
Nil
50932
14.0000
85.33
10.77
2.60
375
47
24
41
0.9591
10.58
6.61
Nil
50987
16.1800
85.54
10.82
2.58
340
47
30
43
0.9595
10.00
6.14
Nil
Mean
85.55
10.84
2.56
338
17
27
42
0.9687
10.00
6.38
Nil
-------
APPENDIX E
TABLE 3
ANALYSIS OF TJ 102 MEDIUM VACUUM BOTTOMS
Sample Number
C wt %
H wt %
S wt %
N wt %
V ppm
Ni ppm
SG
Conradson Carbon
Asphaltenes
50912
85.75
10.51
3. 18
0.55
630
78
1.013^
7-59
9.83
50713
85.91
10.40
3.22
0.55
625
78
1 .0146
9.79
10.00
Mean
85.83
10.46
3.20
0.55
628
78
1.0140
8.69
9.92
- 321 -
-------
APPENDIX E
TABLE 4
ANALYSIS OF ILLINOIS No. 6 COAL
Particle Size Distribution
Carbon wt %
Hydrogen wt %
Sulphur wt %
Nitrogen wt %
Oxygen wt %
Ash wt %
Moisture wt %
Illinois No. 6
up to 0.32 cm (1/8 inch)
67.70
4.62
2.52
1.59
7.92
11.39
4.26
- 322 -
-------
APPENDIX F
MODIFICATIONS TO THE CAFB PILOT UNIT IN
PREPARATION FOR COAL GASIFICATION TESTS
Summary
A number of modifications were made to the pilot unit
arising from either improvements necessary based on experience
during Run 10, in anticipation of the planned test programme
on coal gasification, or as a direct request from Foster
Wheeler Energy Corporation to test equipment to assist in
the design of a 20 MW demonstration unit at San Benito,
Texas. The major areas where modifications were made
were:-
a) A new cyclone drain and fines returns was installed.
b) A new lime/coal feed system was designed and built.
c) A number of coal injection needles were provided for
testing.
d) Provision was made for flue gas recycle via tuyeres
and the flue gas recycle was redesigned.
e) A gas oil injection system was installed for regener-
ator warm-up.
f) New instrumentation for gas analysis was installed.
g) A new gasifier air blower was fitted.
h) Detailed changes were made to the fuel oil, pressure
monitoring, solids transfer, nitrogen and compressed
air systems.
Details of these changes are provided below.
a) Cyclone Drain and Fines Returns System
During Run 10, major difficulties were experienced in
operating the cyclone drain and fines/e^nsHS?;^Sun
Whilst improvements in design were indjnj?;fied *!?"£ U£nese
doubtedly would have eleminated some of the problems, these
- 323 -
-------
were not implemented since it was reqested that a system be
tested to assist in the design of the Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation 20 MW demonstration unit at San Benito in Texas.
The design basis for the new system is summarised below.
During Run 10, all the fines were re-injected into the
gasifier. For operations on coal, a new problem of ash
build up as the system appears and the fines return system
had to be capable of fractionating the fines, re-injecting
the coarse fraction and rejecting the fine, ash fraction.
A second major requirement was that the cyclone drain
and thus the fines pick up should be below the gasifier
distributor so that a lift system would be required. This
consideration was a direct consequence of limitations of
space at the San Benito test site.
A final consideration was that large chunks of material
liable to break loose from the cyclone walls during burn
outs could be removed from the system.
With these major considerations in mind, a valveless
system was designed - see Figure 1.
The fines collected in the two main gasifier cyclones
drain via a Y-shaped duct into a hopper where the contents
could be fluidised with pulsed nitrogen supply through
radially arranged nozzles. The fluidised solids could thus
flow over a weir into an eductor, the rate being controlled
by the frequency and duration of the nitrogen pulse. From
the eductor, the solids are circulated to two cyclones in
series on a recirculating air stream. The cyclones fract-
ionate the solids, the first cyclone being relatively
inefficient so as to remove only the coarse fraction and the
second cyclone being highly efficient to remove the fine
fraction from the system. The coarse fraction is re-injected
into the gasifier bed.
The operation of the hopper fluidising system is
triggered by a temperature sensor in the cyclone drain leg
which activates the pulsers when the solids levels in the
legs increases. Conversely, when the solids levels drops
below the temperature senor, the pulsers are switched off.
A solids seal can thus be maintained between the cyclones
and the fines eductor/re-injection systems.
Because of the configuration of the hopper, large
chunks of material could be expected to remain in the bottom
and not be fluidised. They could then be removed via a
discharge valve periodically.
- 324 -
-------
Provisions were incorporated around the system to cool
the gas stream prior to recirculation to the blower, and to
bleed nitrogen into the gas stream if required for temper-
ature control when the fines include hot fine carbon particles
b) Coal and Lime Feed System
Extensive modifications were carried out on the lime
feed equipment in order to increase its capacity to utilise
it as a coal feed system. A schematic of the new arrangement
is shown in Figure 2.
The system is fully automotic with control being via
two micro-switches incorporated in a modified chart recorder
used also to measure the solids feed rate. The chart
recorder scale was directly matched to the weigh cell so
that the micro-switches when triggered by the movement of
the recorder pen could be directly set to correspond to
suitable upper and lower levels of solids in the weigh
hopper.
Thus, when coal or lime was fed from the weigh cell
into the gasifier, the decreasing level eventually triggered
the low level micro swich. This caused valve V3 to open
whilst VI and V2 closed. Flow restrictors in the compressed
air lines delayed the opening of V3 until V1 and V2 were
closed in order to prevent depressurisation of the weigh
hopper through the lock hopper. With V3 open, coal or lime
could fall into the weigh hopper until the high level
micro-switch was triggered when V3 closed and VI and V2
opened, again with a delay on V1 and V2 opening to limit
pressure surges.
The closure of V3 triggered off a third micro-swich
controlling the vacuum lift switch which then replenished
the top lock hopper until switched off by a high level
detector. Thus system ensured that the vacuum lift system
could not be actuated with V3 open.
Time controls were included in the system so that
alarms were activated if the lock hopper high level was not
triggered in a certain time (showing the dispenser required
refilling), if the solids replenishment of the weigh hopper
took too long (V3 plugged or empty lock hopper), or if Vj
failed to close within a specified time. All of these times
can be adjusted manually for convenience within limits.
Some detailed modifications to this system.w^r?
carried out. The injection system below the weigh hopper
and metering vibrating table was redesigned in order to
- 325 -
-------
accommodate injection needles of different materials pene-
trating the gasifier bed for tests on their suitability for
incorporation in the design of the San Benito demonstration
unit. Tests were planned for two silicon carbide needles
(self bonded, and recrystallised types) and two stainless
steel needles protected with either hard or soft refractories,
As a consequence, the purge and bleed systems for air and
nitrogen around the solids feed system were modified sub-
stantially .
Flue Gas Recycle System
The bag filter and housing employed during Run 10
was replaced with a high efficiency cyclone and the dust
loading of the flue gas was reduced by locating the take off
point downstream of the main stack cyclone and knock out
vessels. The recycled flue gas was fed directly into the
fluidised bed via four 1 11/16 inch diameter Firebird Blue
stainless steel tubes.
Analytical System
A completely new analytical system for the gas streams
was installed, only the Wosthoff S02 analyser being retained
from the existing equipment. The new equipment was supplied
by Hartmann and Braun and comprised the necessary gas
cooling and pumping components and the infra.red analysers.
An additional sampeling point for the stack SC>2 gas was
installed to provide total SC>2 level (regenerator + boiler
emission) as a back up for calculating sulphur balance to
that provided by the separate boiler and regenerator samples.
This was installed well above the regenerator gas inlet to
the stack so that a representative level of SC>2 could be
determined.
A schematic of the new system is shown in Fig.3-
Gas Oil Burner for Regenerator
Occasional difficulties are experienced in reheating
the regenerator bed following prolonged shutdown. To
overcome this problem a gas oil metering and delivery system
was linked to a removeable injector inserted through the
lower regenerator pressure tapping to inject up to 150
ml/hour gas oil when a fast reheat was required.
- 326 -
-------
Bed Transfer System
The rodding out ports into the entry boxes in the two
reactors were enlarged and the horizontal pulser injectors
were calibrated so that their penetration could be adjusted
and measured accurately.
Fuel Oil Injection system
The side injectors used during Run 10 were removed and
replaced with flue gas recycle entry tuyeres. Thus, only
the two horizontal injectors onto the distributor pit were
available for fuel oil injection and the pipe work and
valving arrangements could be simplified.
Pressure Monitoring system
Manometers used to monitor pressures around the gasifier
and regenerator were replaced by differential pressure
gauges.
Gasifier Fluidising Air Blower
A new Godfrey positive displacement blower was installed
to provide fluidising air for the gasifier.
Minor Modifications
A large number of minor modifications were made to the
nitrogen and air supply system to incorporate the additional
needs of the new fines returns system and the modified
limestone/coal feed system, solids transfer system and flue
gas recycle system.
The kerosine delivery system to the gasifier was
stripped out as it was no longer required for the operation
of the unit.
Thermocouples and pressure tappings were refurbished
and replaced where necessary.
A large number of items were inspected, and overhauled
as a matter of routine. The major item investigated was the
limestone/coal feed metering vibrating table which had
- 327 -
-------
proved to be so troublesome during Run 10. Whilst no
mechanical or electrical deficiency in the mechanism could
be found, a possible cause of its poor performance was
thought to be due to dust accumulating around and under the
vibrator itself. Steps were taken to improve this by
inserting a pad of foam rubber under the vibrator to
prevent ingress of dust.
- 328 -
-------
. REPORT
EPA-600/7-79-066
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read InXructions on the reverse before completing)
11
|3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
|5. REPORT DATE ~~
February 1979
J6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
A.W. Rams den and Z. Kowszun
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
Esso Research Centre
Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX136AE
England
RESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB013; ROAP 21ADD-BE
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1479
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final: 6/74 - 12/76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
IB. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES IERL-RTP project officer is Samuel L. Rakes, MD-61, 919/541-
J2825. EPA-600/2-76-248 and EPA-650/2-74-109 are earlier related reports.
i6. ABSTRACT The report gives results of Phase 4 of a study on the CAFB process for
gasification/desulfurization of liquid and solid fuels in a bed of hot lime. A new pilot
unit was designed and constructed, incorporating such novel features as: a new
fluidizing air distributor, high-flow/low-pressure-drop cyclones, and improved
refractory construction. Conclusions include: (1) confirmation of the process descrip-
tion by a statistically derived equation; (2) bed age has a significant effect on desul-
furization efficiency; (3) heavy residua can be gasified and desulfurized; (4) solid
fuels show potential as feedstocks; (5) trace element retention depends on stone
replenishment rate (a rate sufficient to maintain bed depth--0.2 molar--is adequate
to maintain trace element capture and sulfur removal performance); (6) satisfactory
performance of the redesigned pilot unit; (7) a carbon burn-back procedure was not
completely effective in cleaning the cyclones; (8) confirmation that coal and Texas
lignite are suitable feedstocks for the CAFB and that ash accumulation and fusion do
not appear to be limiting; and (9) Texas limestone is satisfactory as bed material if
it is available in a suitable particle size range. Remaining work includes perfor-
mance tests and evaluation.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATl Field/Group
Pollution Fuel Oil
Fluidized Bed Processors
Gasification Residual Oils
Limestone Heavy Oils
Desulfurization Coal
Trace Elements
Desie-n
Lignite
Reiractories
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
CAFB Process
Chemically Active Fluid
Bed
Fluidized Lime Bed
13B 11H,21D
131,07A
13H
08G
07D
06A.06P
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport/
Unclassified
340
Unlimited
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
- 329 -
------- |